Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 30, 2003, at 8:37 PM, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: This doesn't seem quite right to me. I agree that when we have voted in a new committer, both the existing committers and the new committer have had the same expectations with respect to their rights and responsibilities *within the sub-project*. While those rights and responsibilities may be the same ones that apply to members of the PMC, the domain over which they apply is very different. I don't think it would be right to turn around now, and tell a committer on sub-project X oh, by the way, you're now part of the PMC and that means that you are (collectively) responsible for all of Jakarta. That doesn't meet the expectations *I* originally had at all, when I first became a Jakarta committer myself. Yes, but I thought I had a say, by way of binding votes, in the project I was elected in, and was responsible for the future of the project and now that doesn't seem true either. I haven't been around for too long but this whole thing seems like a problem of misunderstanding of rights and responsibilities. Not that I have a good understanding :) I think one of the disconnects here is that what we are trying to do is fix an organizational problem to solve a legal issue in order that the legal organization reflects the non-legal reality. Let me try to clarify that babble with a question : Forgetting about this recent thread of conversation, do you feel that you aren't responsible for and able to affect the future of the projects you are involved in? I believe and hope the answer is, without thought, no. The non-legal reality is that you and your community have been working building software, judging commits, electing new committers, etc. Without disturbing anything [as best we can], we want to make things conform to the corporate governance requirements of the ASF. It seems that oversight is the only extra responsibility of a PMC member, and it seems oversight is about making sure that contributed code conforms to IP rights. If so, may be somebody has to explain why the CLA is not good enough to ensure the acceptance of this responsibility. That's an important one, yes. The CLA declares that *you* the committer, to the best of your knowledge, blah, blah... which is one side of the issue. The other side is that 'we the ASF' are also looking out for the ASF re IP rights. So the ASF is able to say 1) we actively are examining IP via the PMC and 2) we require our committers 'examine' IP and certify cleanliness via the CLA. This strengthens the ASF's position that it does everything reasonable. But another aspect of PMC participation is simply legal detail. As Roy put it (and I'm probably going to bungle this), binding actions of the ASF happen through the structure of the board, officers and the PMCs. Only votes from people on the PMC list are [legally] recognized. Now, I'm not in any way minimizing the necessity for legal compliance, but I also want to emphasize that recognized by the community is just as important, as we'd all just leave and do things elsewhere if it were otherwise. I think Ted's proposal is not forcing all committers to become PMC members but rather extending the membership to every one of them and gives them an option to opt out. I don't think there should be any criteria, other than the willingness of the committer, to become a PMC member. This proposal fulfills that and makes the process faster, I think. While it would make the process faster, I think that the validity of the desired endpoint, a PMC that covers all subprojects well, is path dependent, and the path to greatest defendable legitimacy is when we just don't glom everyone onto the PMC, but ensure that those on it are interested (which the 'opt out' above covers), know what they are doing (via simple educational support) and most importantly, are aligned with the ASF. After all, this *is* a committee of the board of the ASF. geir -Harish PS. I think my thoughts follow the right[eous] path ;) Foisting additional responsibility on committers doesn't seem like the right way to go, to me. Allowing - even encouraging - them to take on the additional responibilities of a PMC member would fit much better with *my* original expectations, at least. -- Martin Cooper I believe from the ASF perspective committing==voting and committing==oversight Every time a committer commits, they vote for the code they commit. Most often, it a vote subject to lazy consensus, and in rare cases it might not be binding. But, it is vote nonetheless. Every time a committer commits, they either donate code to the ASF or facilitate a donation, and they incur the obligation to ensure, to the best of their ability, that this is IP that can be donated to the ASF. If we have a committer that does not accept these obligations, then a misunderstanding has occurred, and such committers should step down. The ASF
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Dec 30, 2003, at 8:37 PM, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: This doesn't seem quite right to me. I agree that when we have voted in a new committer, both the existing committers and the new committer have had the same expectations with respect to their rights and responsibilities *within the sub-project*. While those rights and responsibilities may be the same ones that apply to members of the PMC, the domain over which they apply is very different. I don't think it would be right to turn around now, and tell a committer on sub-project X oh, by the way, you're now part of the PMC and that means that you are (collectively) responsible for all of Jakarta. That doesn't meet the expectations *I* originally had at all, when I first became a Jakarta committer myself. Yes, but I thought I had a say, by way of binding votes, in the project I was elected in, and was responsible for the future of the project and now that doesn't seem true either. I haven't been around for too long but this whole thing seems like a problem of misunderstanding of rights and responsibilities. Not that I have a good understanding :) I think one of the disconnects here is that what we are trying to do is fix an organizational problem to solve a legal issue in order that the legal organization reflects the non-legal reality. Let me try to clarify that babble with a question : Forgetting about this recent thread of conversation, do you feel that you aren't responsible for and able to affect the future of the projects you are involved in? I believe and hope the answer is, without thought, no. Yes, absolutely no. My point was, the understanding of committer rights (legally that is), at the time of becoming a committer, was incorrect and so it doesn't matter what we thought or expected. We will just have to make things legally right and realign our expectations accordingly, I think. The non-legal reality is that you and your community have been working building software, judging commits, electing new committers, etc. Without disturbing anything [as best we can], we want to make things conform to the corporate governance requirements of the ASF. Absolutely, I totally understand and agree. It seems that oversight is the only extra responsibility of a PMC member, and it seems oversight is about making sure that contributed code conforms to IP rights. If so, may be somebody has to explain why the CLA is not good enough to ensure the acceptance of this responsibility. That's an important one, yes. The CLA declares that *you* the committer, to the best of your knowledge, blah, blah... which is one side of the issue. The other side is that 'we the ASF' are also looking out for the ASF re IP rights. So the ASF is able to say 1) we actively are examining IP via the PMC and 2) we require our committers 'examine' IP and certify cleanliness via the CLA. This strengthens the ASF's position that it does everything reasonable. But another aspect of PMC participation is simply legal detail. As Roy put it (and I'm probably going to bungle this), binding actions of the ASF happen through the structure of the board, officers and the PMCs. Only votes from people on the PMC list are [legally] recognized. Now, I'm not in any way minimizing the necessity for legal compliance, but I also want to emphasize that recognized by the community is just as important, as we'd all just leave and do things elsewhere if it were otherwise. Absolutely, I totally understand and agree. I think Ted's proposal is not forcing all committers to become PMC members but rather extending the membership to every one of them and gives them an option to opt out. I don't think there should be any criteria, other than the willingness of the committer, to become a PMC member. This proposal fulfills that and makes the process faster, I think. While it would make the process faster, I think that the validity of the desired endpoint, a PMC that covers all subprojects well, is path dependent, and the path to greatest defendable legitimacy is when we just don't glom everyone onto the PMC, but ensure that those on it are interested (which the 'opt out' above covers), know what they are doing (via simple educational support) and most importantly, are aligned with the ASF. After all, this *is* a committee of the board of the ASF. Absolutely, I totally understand and agree. This seems in accordance with Ted's proposal as far as PMC membership is concerned. -Harish geir -Harish PS. I think my thoughts follow the right[eous] path ;) Foisting additional responsibility on committers doesn't seem like the right way to go, to me. Allowing - even encouraging - them to take on the additional responibilities of a PMC member would fit much better with *my* original expectations, at least. -- Martin Cooper I believe from the ASF perspective committing==voting and
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
If I were the chair of the Jakarta PMC and a board member and favored seeing Jakarta split up into TLPs, I'd do this: 1. Put everyone on the PMC 2. Get them in a reorganization type discussion Because the bulk of the 700? committers at Apache are in Jakarta and the bulk of the discussion has no technical basis whatsoever to guide it, it would eventually get frustrating and the participants would come to the inevitable conclusion to which I wanted to guide them: Jakarta is unsustainable. Once the deed was done I could even step aside and watch it burn. However, if that were not my position and I were that same person, I'd guide them to a middle ground where Jakarta was more of an administrative body which handles Pan-Jakarta issues and each project had its own PMC responsible for its own issues (releases,etc). This would of course achieve much the same thing as TLPs without all of the constitutional convention-like discussion which will inevitably move to the meaning of democracy, meritocracy and finally to some kind of equation to Hitler or Nazism. (http://cbbrowne.com/info/godwin.html, http://www.eff.org/Net_culture/Folklore/Humor/godwins.law) The first would of course assume that I favored indirect manipulation as opposed to just stating my viewpoint. http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/946.html This isn't intended to really contribute to the discussion since I doubt I can change its inevitable path at this point. It is only to provide me with the empty satisfaction of saying I told you so later. ;-) Have fun. I'm mostly skimming now. Someone let me know if I miss anything that actually requires my attention. -Andy -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:13:59 -0500 Andrew C. Oliver wrote: If I were the chair of the Jakarta PMC and a board member and favored seeing Jakarta split up into TLPs, I'd do this: 1. Put everyone on the PMC 2. Get them in a reorganization type discussion In HTTPD/APR world. mostly Apache MEMBERS = Apache COMMITTERS. (OH, you pointed it our, 6 months ago ;-)! You/I can see the difference. Yep. This is the root of the evil. This *MUST* be fixed. I'd like to see the jakarta XXX PMC groups to be organized into subgroups realms. Jakarta has it's own brand. You can have either Jakarta POI or Apache POI, i guess... subsets of the group. .. thus would be integrated into the jakarta PMC in the near future. Suffices. APR/HTTPD guys would be gratified, i hope. Could you please explain why the discussion lasts forever? -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:13:59 -0500 Andrew C. Oliver wrote: If I were the chair of the Jakarta PMC and a board member and favored seeing Jakarta split up into TLPs, I'd do this: 1. Put everyone on the PMC 2. Get them in a reorganization type discussion In HTTPD/APR world. mostly Apache MEMBERS = Apache COMMITTERS. (OH, you pointed it our, 6 months ago ;-)! You/I can see the difference. Yep. This is the root of the evil. This *MUST* be fixed. I'd like to see the jakarta XXX PMC groups to be organized into subgroups realms. Jakarta has it's own brand. You can have either Jakarta POI or Apache POI, i guess... subsets of the group. .. thus would be integrated into the jakarta PMC in the near future. Many don't like this subgroup idea. In fact, the obvious option of a 'jakarta-pmc' sub committee on each jakarta project that reports to the jakarta 'board', is definitely disliked by the apache board [I believe]. Two major options seem to be: 1) Big PMC that everyone is on, with the reality that we have interest in various areas. 2) Promote projects to TLP. Now, as Noel has pointed out in the past, TLP's can still be on the Jakarta site and use the Jakarta CVS. But they would not be under the Jakarta PMC. So far, no Jakarta 'project' has chosen to remain in the Jakarta world when they goto TLP. Web/cvs-wise. Suffices. APR/HTTPD guys would be gratified, i hope. Board. Not APR/HTTPD. Could you please explain why the discussion lasts forever? Because for some insane reason, there are still people out there who refuse to just give me complete dictatorial power over the entire world. I agree with you that this is insane, who wouldn't want to do things the way I want to. I'll pass your thoughts onto the UN as proof that they should just kowtow to my magnificance. Also dictionaries need to change the way that word is spelt to be easier to spell when I'm feeling last night's beer. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:18:29 -0500 Ted Husted wrote: If Struts does graduate to a TLP, I would update the wiki page based on our own experience (if someone doesn't beat me to it) and post a link to all the DEV lists. (Unless, of course, the growing consensus changes and the PMC decides to do such a thing itself.) Hmmm. Apache Struts brand would be cool. Why don't you choose it? Apache Tomcat is more cool. Jakarta Commons - ORO/ECS/REGEXP/BSF would be cool Apache Turbine ... like avalon -- OH, great. Why don't you? As for the rest of it, I've said my piece, and I'm happy to let Darwin and Consensus decide. Haha, Darwinism is not perfect. You must give the chance to the losers :-) (Maybe Brain model would be perfect :) I'd like to know the barriers for you/us/them. Could you please let me know? Thanks a ton. -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Hi, Henri and all On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:44:31 -0500 (EST) Henri Yandell wrote: I'd like to see the jakarta XXX PMC groups to be organized into subgroups realms. Jakarta has it's own brand. You can have either Jakarta POI or Apache POI, i guess... subsets of the group. .. thus would be integrated into the jakarta PMC in the near future. Many don't like this subgroup idea. In fact, the obvious option of a 'jakarta-pmc' sub committee on each jakarta project that reports to the jakarta 'board', is definitely disliked by the apache board [I believe]. Hmmm. (You can copy and forward this mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], BTW) Two major options seem to be: 1) Big PMC that everyone is on, with the reality that we have interest in various areas. 2) Promote projects to TLP. 2) is not realistic. Personally I felt, Apache Struts brand would be cool -- if Ted felt ;) Apache Tomcat is more cool. Jakarta Commons - ORO/ECS/REGEXP/BSF would be cool Apache Turbine ... like Apache Avalon # .. POI ?? ff.apache.org with xml.apache.org/fop? :) However, I do not think it that we should promote each sub-projects in jakarta into TLP realms. Communities can decide. Now, as Noel has pointed out in the past, TLP's can still be on the Jakarta site and use the Jakarta CVS. But they would not be under the Jakarta PMC. Haha. I'd like to see this more. Noel, could you please? So far, no Jakarta 'project' has chosen to remain in the Jakarta world when they goto TLP. Web/cvs-wise. CVS/Web (sub-domain) would be not related ... in my humble (OH) opinions. Apache James (for example) do not have it's own download system ;-) Suffices. APR/HTTPD guys would be gratified, i hope. Board. Not APR/HTTPD. A couple of BOOs... Why would board members complain the world of the jakarta? what's wrong? Could I have the opinions from the board members here in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could you please explain why the discussion lasts forever? Because for some insane reason, there are still people out there who refuse to just give me complete dictatorial power over the entire world. I agree with you that this is insane, who wouldn't want to do things the way I want to. Please. I'll pass your thoughts onto the UN as proof that they should just kowtow to my magnificance. Also dictionaries need to change the way that word is spelt to be easier to spell when I'm feeling last night's beer. Thanks. Have a nice new year day. Sincerely, -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: Two major options seem to be: 1) Big PMC that everyone is on, with the reality that we have interest in various areas. 2) Promote projects to TLP. 2) is not realistic. Why not? I don't agree that ALL projects should, but Henri didn't say all of them. Now, as Noel has pointed out in the past, TLP's can still be on the Jakarta site and use the Jakarta CVS. But they would not be under the Jakarta PMC. Haha. I'd like to see this more. Noel, could you please? Could I please what? Henri, when you send off for your dictatorial powers, would you please add me to the request list, too? I think I've got enough boxtops around here somewhere, and they would be much more fun that that secret decoder ring. Apache James (for example) do not have it's own download system ;-) Uh ... http://james.apache.org/download.cgi But it needs to be fixed and finished. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:36:27 -0500 Noel J. Bergman wrote: Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: Two major options seem to be: 1) Big PMC that everyone is on, with the reality that we have interest in various areas. 2) Promote projects to TLP. 2) is not realistic. Why not? I don't agree that ALL projects should, but Henri didn't say all of them. I said. Apache Struts brand would be cool -- if Ted felt ;) Apache Tomcat is more cool. Jakarta Commons - ORO/ECS/REGEXP/BSF would be cool Apache Turbine ... like Apache Avalon # .. POI ?? ff.apache.org with xml.apache.org/fop? :) ... First off, would them decribed above can think of the TLP-ness. ... and i hope them to be discussed here. Now, as Noel has pointed out in the past, TLP's can still be on the Jakarta site and use the Jakarta CVS. But they would not be under the Jakarta PMC. Haha. I'd like to see this more. Noel, could you please? Could I please what? Henri, when you send off for your dictatorial powers, would you please add me to the request list, too? I think I've got enough boxtops around here somewhere, and they would be much more fun that that secret decoder ring. Sorry, I'd like you to explain more (this is my opins, one of the committers/jakarta :-). Apache James has less branding images compared to the Jakarta James. Maybe someone can prove it. I *could not* have it because i do not have sufficient karma (and power) to have such. ... Noel, I'd like to see what has changed (improved!) after the graduation from jakarta ... got TLP-ness ... we'd like to know the comments from you. genuine one Apache James (for example) do not have it's own download system ;-) Uh ... http://james.apache.org/download.cgi But it needs to be fixed and finished. Please fix it. i know that Apache James got TLP-ness 10 months (or more) ago. ... :-) # Need helps? - Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terra-intl.com/ Apache Software Foundation Committer: http://www.apache.org/~tetsuya/ XML Consortium Member: http://www.xmlconsortium.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
In HTTPD/APR world. mostly Apache MEMBERS = Apache COMMITTERS. (OH, you pointed it our, 6 months ago ;-)! You must mean HTTPD PMC Members ~= HTTPD Committers more ore less. Yes. Size matters. This is obviously not feasible for Jakarta as we are demonstrating so aptly. You/I can see the difference. Yep. This is the root of the evil. This *MUST* be fixed. I'd like to see the jakarta XXX PMC groups to be organized into subgroups realms. Jakarta has it's own brand. You can have either Jakarta POI or Apache POI, i guess... subsets of the group. .. thus would be integrated into the jakarta PMC in the near future. This is essentially the formalization of how it is of course. Suffices. APR/HTTPD guys would be gratified, i hope. Could you please explain why the discussion lasts forever? First, we're trying too many people come to a consensus on a non-technical issue. Second, because we're trying to over-manage and uber-manage things. It will only get worse. It would be even worse if it were in private. My point was merely to point out the puppet strings, not to join the puppets. ;-) -Andy -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:27:30 -0500 Andrew C. Oliver wrote: In HTTPD/APR world. mostly Apache MEMBERS = Apache COMMITTERS. (OH, you pointed it our, 6 months ago ;-)! You must mean HTTPD PMC Members ~= HTTPD Committers more ore less. Yes. Obvious. HTTPD (Apache HTTP WebServer Project) does not have *general* list. That's all. # Jakarta should have it's own way, i hope. If Jakarta can't have such, # the board would be *wrong* ... that's all. Size matters. This is obviously not feasible for Jakarta as we are demonstrating so aptly. Wow, Great. Size matter? Could you please describe the committer*ness* @ http://jakarta.apache.org/site/whoweare.html ?? ... more ?? ;-) Can you describe the all the committers/PMC members@ http://jakarta.apache.org/site/whoweare.html , by the way? ;-) You/I can see the difference. Yep. This is the root of the evil. This *MUST* be fixed. I'd like to see the jakarta XXX PMC groups to be organized into subgroups realms. Jakarta has it's own brand. You can have either Jakarta POI or Apache POI, i guess... subsets of the group. .. thus would be integrated into the jakarta PMC in the near future. This is essentially the formalization of how it is of course. Okeydokey Suffices. APR/HTTPD guys would be gratified, i hope. Could you please explain why the discussion lasts forever? First, we're trying too many people come to a consensus on a non-technical issue. Second, because we're trying to over-manage and uber-manage things. Yes, i know that non-technical issue should be open. It will only get worse. It would be even worse if it were in private. I can not trust you ;-) . (joke) so I do not make such an issue to be in private :-) // nothing to be got worse My point was merely to point out the puppet strings, not to join the puppets. ;-) Puppet? Andy? ... are you puppet? ... of what? I am sure that you are *far from* the puppet of XYZ .. ... as you are the puppet of the united states :-). I am sure that you guys are wrong about the interpretations of the comments from the board members. I'd like to see the board members opinions here @ [EMAIL PROTECTED], directly. ... Critical issue... maybe ... D'OH We, Jakarta-n, should *not* be humiliated by the BOARD members ;-) I'd like to have the opinions from board members directly here. This might improve the PMCness of the Jakarta, i hope. -- I'd like to know why the PMC list @ jakarta *WAS* full of disputes over the TLP-ness of XYZ ... Andy, could you please explain this more? Thanks, godness -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
