Carl Trieloff wrote:
I have updated the resolution with those that requested to be on the
PMC.
Apologies for the late request, I'd also like to be on the PMC. I had
drafted a couple of mails to that effect but never got round to
completing & sending them due to other time pressures.
I've been a committer on qpid from the start of the incubation, hovering
around the python and java implementations but focusing mainly on c++.
Clarifying my reason for joining the PMC has been quite tricky for me. I
wasn't too clear on what its remit is exactly, and I've never been the
best person at enforcing correct legal processes (which was the most
obvious role).
The statement in your mail included a nice phrase in the final section:
"Encourage open development and increased participation in the
Apache Qpid Project".
That is a goal I am extremely keen to assist in any way I can. I think
it will be achieved (in part) by ensuring that decision making remains
an open, consensus based process, valuing the opinions of anyone who
takes the time to express them regardless of whether they are committers
or PMC members.
So the honest reason that I would like to be on the PMC is to ensure
that the direction of the project is driven by the community as a whole,
not just by the PMC. (I'm not in anyway saying that this would not be
the case were I not selected, of course, and if I am I expect never to
need to do much!)
Also - I would like comments on paragraph 3, surely we can define the
project a bit better.
For me the Qpid project has always been about a commitment to furthering
the adoption of an interoperable messaging protocol. Our code, our
implementations are part of assisting the adoption of that underlying
protocol.
While clearly we want to strive to improve our offerings, and while we
can usefully use the achievements of other implementations to spur us on
to better things, we should - in my view - see those other
implementations as 'partners' rather than 'competitors'.
I think its valuable to use the text of the resolution to try and define
our identity, ethos and purpose a little; encapsulate principles that
will guide us in any future debates.
My suggested changes to paragraph 3 would be:
(a) to indicate that the PMCs role is to guide the community, and the
community will create and maintain the software etc
(b) to align the goals of Qpid with the adoption of an open protocol,
rather than simply being 'another messaging implementation'
I haven't got the legal background to provide a usable alternative, but
hopefully the following conveys the idea enough to allow debate. Someone
else could then provide a more precise wording should there be general
agreement on the intent.
"RESOLVED, that the Apache Qpid PMC be and hereby is responsible
for ensuring that the Qpid community pursue its goal of furthering the
adoption of an open network protocol for messaging in the spirit of the
Foundation, and in compliance with all the required procedures of the
Foundation."
