Re: Notice of intent.... #2
--- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For example: > - HttpComponents > - WebComponents > - LibraryComponents (narrowAPI-deep) > - BaseComponents (broadAPI-shallow) Explain that narrowAPI-deep, braodAPI-shallow business. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Notice of intent.... #2
Phil Steitz wrote: Hopefully we can keep it at a point where the groups are really just there to refine the flow of mail, not to separate it. HttpComponents is an example of this (though not a good one as most of its components came from HttpClient). WebComponents (formerly hoped to be known as Silk) is another example. Commons would be groupalized out. Not sure I understand exactly what you mean here, but if it means breaking commons up - even the list - I think we should think very carefully about that. From what may be a selfish perspective - and which I will back off from if the rest of the community feels otherwise - I think getting feedback from the full group of commons committers and voluneers *really* helps those of us who work on commons components. I am afraid that if we break up the dev list and we don't all just agree to subscribe to all of the sublists (really defeating the purpose), we will both have a harder time building community around components and we will lose some valuable feedback. We will also have less collective energy to apply to things like the site, how we think about versioning and releases, etc. We are developing a pretty good body of collective experience developing small java components and I think that if we "split up" now we may be losing something. I believe that this plan only works if we are prepared to have multiple mailing lists. Try merging velocity, httpclient, taglibs,... all into the commons list and its just ridiculous. The question is how to break down the groupings. And how big should they be. One rule would be that a component is only in one grouping. For example: - HttpComponents - WebComponents - LibraryComponents (narrowAPI-deep) - BaseComponents (broadAPI-shallow) site and build discussions can occur on a shared list. Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta stats
Vadim Gritsenko wrote: Martin van den Bemt wrote: The result can be a couple of things (probably depending on the response) : - Leave it as is - Move them to emuritus Above two are the only acceptable choices for folks with valid accounts. We can discuss means and mechanisms of moving to emeritus and back, but removing folks who fall into groups 2) to 5) is unacceptable - all IMHO. Removing can also be started on request of the committer... So the third option is acceptable. (it is happening as we speak btw : Jeff Dever, see infrastructure list). Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta stats
Martin van den Bemt wrote: The result can be a couple of things (probably depending on the response) : - Leave it as is - Move them to emuritus Above two are the only acceptable choices for folks with valid accounts. We can discuss means and mechanisms of moving to emeritus and back, but removing folks who fall into groups 2) to 5) is unacceptable - all IMHO. Vadim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta stats
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Danny Angus wrote: I'm one of the "1) Inactive PMC members Define inactive. Inactive as a committer? Inactive as a PMC member providing oversight to Jakarta projects? I'm in the former category, as are many, but I still actively monitor several project lists, even if I only post when I have something specific to contribute. Maybe an order in which a "cleanup" can be persued : 1) People who are committer and don't have a CLA on file. In short : people with disabled accounts. (don't remember if there was a follow action on that to completely remove these users?) 1a) People who are just committer on projects that no longer exist (eg jakarta-alexandria) 2) People who are committer, did commit some files and then were never heard of again. 3) People who are committer, did do some serious work and vanished. 4) People who are on the PMC and aren't active committers and aren't active participants. 5) People who are on the PMC and their project moved to another PMC and aren't active participants. Activity doesn't mean just committing. For all points : skip members of the foundation. 1 is most likely the case for people who moved on to something else. With points 2 till 5 we could check if they are still on mailinglists and we could send them a polite mail (content varying, depending if on PMC or not) asking what their future plans are. The result can be a couple of things (probably depending on the response) : - Leave it as is - Move them to emuritus - Remove them. or - Vote on them (?) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Jakarta stats
Danny Angus wrote: > I'm one of the "1) Inactive PMC members Define inactive. Inactive as a committer? Inactive as a PMC member providing oversight to Jakarta projects? I'm in the former category, as are many, but I still actively monitor several project lists, even if I only post when I have something specific to contribute. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta stats
On 1/12/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Danny Angus wrote: > > > > > > > I'm one of the "1) Inactive PMC members : 39" > > > > For historical reasons I made it onto this PMC just as the project I was > > really involved with (James) got promoted to TLP. > > I hung around to try to help make sure that Jakarta didn't die as a > result > > of all the reorganisation, and wasn't killed off because we failed to > > provide adequate oversight while we carried out the controlled expansion > of > > the PMC. > > On the one hand I think it may be time for me to move on, on the other > hand > > I think that Jakarta PMC might benefit from the continuity provided by > > letting the interest of me and the others like me fade away as Jakarta > > continues to evolve. > > > > Whatever I think, I would happily relinquish my PMC vote if the active > PMC > > members think it would help in any way. > > Personally, I think that as long as we don't have to have any form of > quorom, and as long as the inactive PMC member is on the mailing list > (which really means they're not completely inactive), then it's not a > problem. > > We do need quorom on one issue: "The Chairman or any member may be removed > from the PMC by a 3/4 vote of the PMC." > > Of course, we only have 60% active right now, so presuming only committers > to the current Jakarta voted, that line of the charter would be > impossible. What, you think we're going to let you off the hook as PMC Chair any time soon? Ha ha ha! ;-) -- Martin Cooper Not a biggy I think, I think the chair can sidestep the charter if the > community allowed it and removing the chair is more about the PMC sending > a vote of no confidence to the board regardless of %, the board's > interpretation of that vote would be subjective. > > ie) I doubt a chair could be removed for doing what the board said had to > be done. 75% or no 75%. :) > > It's one of the places where Jakarta modelled itself on the ASF, but isn't > the same as the ASF. > > -=-=-=-= > > Mostly I'm worried about: > > PMC members who are not on pmc@ (there's a handful) > PMC members who are not on general@ (never looked. I will soon) > Inactive committers who are not on the PMC (200+) > > Hen > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Jakarta stats
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 1/12/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -=-=-=-= Mostly I'm worried about: PMC members who are not on pmc@ (there's a handful) PMC members who are not on general@ (never looked. I will soon) Inactive committers who are not on the PMC (200+) s/Inactive/Active/ ? Well, I'm worried about Active committers who are not on the PMC you're right :) #1 issue. The above meant, those are the three sets I think need to be emeritus'd. The 200+ would be wrong then as it includes the smaller number of active committers who we need to get on the PMC. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta stats
On 1/12/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -=-=-=-= > > Mostly I'm worried about: > > PMC members who are not on pmc@ (there's a handful) > PMC members who are not on general@ (never looked. I will soon) > Inactive committers who are not on the PMC (200+) > s/Inactive/Active/ ? That made for an interesting read, thanks for posting the stats. -Rahul > Hen > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta stats
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Danny Angus wrote: I'm one of the "1) Inactive PMC members : 39" For historical reasons I made it onto this PMC just as the project I was really involved with (James) got promoted to TLP. I hung around to try to help make sure that Jakarta didn't die as a result of all the reorganisation, and wasn't killed off because we failed to provide adequate oversight while we carried out the controlled expansion of the PMC. On the one hand I think it may be time for me to move on, on the other hand I think that Jakarta PMC might benefit from the continuity provided by letting the interest of me and the others like me fade away as Jakarta continues to evolve. Whatever I think, I would happily relinquish my PMC vote if the active PMC members think it would help in any way. Personally, I think that as long as we don't have to have any form of quorom, and as long as the inactive PMC member is on the mailing list (which really means they're not completely inactive), then it's not a problem. We do need quorom on one issue: "The Chairman or any member may be removed from the PMC by a 3/4 vote of the PMC." Of course, we only have 60% active right now, so presuming only committers to the current Jakarta voted, that line of the charter would be impossible. Not a biggy I think, I think the chair can sidestep the charter if the community allowed it and removing the chair is more about the PMC sending a vote of no confidence to the board regardless of %, the board's interpretation of that vote would be subjective. ie) I doubt a chair could be removed for doing what the board said had to be done. 75% or no 75%. :) It's one of the places where Jakarta modelled itself on the ASF, but isn't the same as the ASF. -=-=-=-= Mostly I'm worried about: PMC members who are not on pmc@ (there's a handful) PMC members who are not on general@ (never looked. I will soon) Inactive committers who are not on the PMC (200+) Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta stats
I'm one of the "1) Inactive PMC members : 39" For historical reasons I made it onto this PMC just as the project I was really involved with (James) got promoted to TLP. I hung around to try to help make sure that Jakarta didn't die as a result of all the reorganisation, and wasn't killed off because we failed to provide adequate oversight while we carried out the controlled expansion of the PMC. On the one hand I think it may be time for me to move on, on the other hand I think that Jakarta PMC might benefit from the continuity provided by letting the interest of me and the others like me fade away as Jakarta continues to evolve. Whatever I think, I would happily relinquish my PMC vote if the active PMC members think it would help in any way. d. *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limit ed. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ** - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
