Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Harish Krishnaswamy]

Anything happening in this regard?

-Harish

Costin Manolache wrote:

Ted Husted wrote:

Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one 
on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I 
believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the 
PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let 
each decision-maker decide for himself or herself.




If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to 
hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the 
PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that 
process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided. 
Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever 
Jakarta wants to be.


+1

It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or 
ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with 
the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote 
yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ).

I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's 
the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism).

I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a  [VOTE] and 
change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with
subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is 
volunteering to monitor.

IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into 
very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them. 
Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the 
problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others 
think without asking.

Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary 
pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be 
consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other 
think ).

Like:

1. Extend the PMC:
- to include all committers ( even if the don't want )
- to include all the comitters who want
- to include all who want and prove they understand the rules
2. Future extension of the PMC:
 - hand-picking by current people
 - people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code 
and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want.

3. Jakarta and TLPs
 - 'encourage' every subproject to TLP
 - let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without 
encouragements
 - 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems
 - do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that 
fit togheter - whatever that means)
 - try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as 
jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him.

4. Is jakarta a good thing ?
 - yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other 
jakarta people
 - no, it's just a mess
 - yes, other projects should do what jakarta does !

I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they 
knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary 
vote to indicate what a majority thinks.

And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all 
_committers_ should vote, but only PMC member votes are binding !!! 
That's why people should volunteer for PMC, however this is about 
jakarta and comitters are what jakarata means.

Costin



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Henri Yandell]

A vote is on-going at the moment [ends Sunday] for 20 or so people, but
I've not heard of any movement on the plans to increase in a more
aggressive way.

Hen

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:

 Anything happening in this regard?

 -Harish

 Costin Manolache wrote:

  Ted Husted wrote:
 
 
  Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one
  on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I
  believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the
  PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let
  each decision-maker decide for himself or herself.
 
 
 
 
  If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to
  hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the
  PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that
  process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided.
  Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever
  Jakarta wants to be.
 
 
  +1
 
  It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or
  ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with
  the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote
  yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ).
 
  I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's
  the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism).
 
  I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a  [VOTE] and
  change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with
  subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is
  volunteering to monitor.
 
 
  IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into
  very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them.
  Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the
  problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others
  think without asking.
 
  Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary
  pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be
  consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other
  think ).
 
  Like:
 
  1. Extend the PMC:
  - to include all committers ( even if the don't want )
  - to include all the comitters who want
  - to include all who want and prove they understand the rules
 
  2. Future extension of the PMC:
   - hand-picking by current people
   - people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code
  and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want.
 
 
  3. Jakarta and TLPs
   - 'encourage' every subproject to TLP
   - let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without
  encouragements
   - 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems
   - do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that
  fit togheter - whatever that means)
   - try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as
  jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him.
 
  4. Is jakarta a good thing ?
   - yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other
  jakarta people
   - no, it's just a mess
   - yes, other projects should do what jakarta does !
 
 
  I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they
  knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary
  vote to indicate what a majority thinks.
 
  And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all
  _committers_ should vote, but only PMC member votes are binding !!!
  That's why people should volunteer for PMC, however this is about
  jakarta and comitters are what jakarata means.
 
 
  Costin
 
 
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Harish Krishnaswamy]

Thanks, will results be posted here?

-Harish

Henri Yandell wrote:

A vote is on-going at the moment [ends Sunday] for 20 or so people, but
I've not heard of any movement on the plans to increase in a more
aggressive way.
Hen

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:


Anything happening in this regard?

-Harish

Costin Manolache wrote:


Ted Husted wrote:


Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one
on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I
believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the
PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let
each decision-maker decide for himself or herself.




If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to
hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the
PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that
process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided.
Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever
Jakarta wants to be.


+1

It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or
ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with
the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote
yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ).
I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's
the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism).
I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a  [VOTE] and
change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with
subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is
volunteering to monitor.
IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into
very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them.
Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the
problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others
think without asking.
Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary
pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be
consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other
think ).
Like:

1. Extend the PMC:
- to include all committers ( even if the don't want )
- to include all the comitters who want
- to include all who want and prove they understand the rules
2. Future extension of the PMC:
- hand-picking by current people
- people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code
and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want.
3. Jakarta and TLPs
- 'encourage' every subproject to TLP
- let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without
encouragements
- 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems
- do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that
fit togheter - whatever that means)
- try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as
jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him.
4. Is jakarta a good thing ?
- yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other
jakarta people
- no, it's just a mess
- yes, other projects should do what jakarta does !
I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they
knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary
vote to indicate what a majority thinks.
And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all
_committers_ should vote, but only PMC member votes are binding !!!
That's why people should volunteer for PMC, however this is about
jakarta and comitters are what jakarata means.
Costin



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Henri Yandell]

Currently that doesn't happen. Would be nice if it could, but it just
doesn't fit.

When someone wins a vote, they're invited to join. If they accept, which
they signify by joining the PMC list [the Jakarta Chair moderates it],
then the Jakarta Chair passes their name onto the board and they're meant
to get inked into the committers/board/committee-info.txt file when it's
official.

From the previous batch of 20 or so, there are still 3 people or so who I
didn't hear back from after two email attempts, and the other 17 [made up
numbers] are still not in the committee-info file.

I'm unsure when an announcement to this list would/should happen under the
process above.

The only part that is enforced is the board part, so until someone appears
in committee-info, they're not technically on the PMC. There's a
/committers/pmc/jakarta/pmc-pending.txt file which shows who is currently
waiting addition to the committee-info.

Ideas?

Hen

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:

 Thanks, will results be posted here?

 -Harish

 Henri Yandell wrote:

  A vote is on-going at the moment [ends Sunday] for 20 or so people, but
  I've not heard of any movement on the plans to increase in a more
  aggressive way.
 
  Hen
 
  On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
 
 
 Anything happening in this regard?
 
 -Harish
 
 Costin Manolache wrote:
 
 
 Ted Husted wrote:
 
 
 Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one
 on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I
 believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the
 PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let
 each decision-maker decide for himself or herself.
 
 
 
 
 If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to
 hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the
 PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that
 process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided.
 Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever
 Jakarta wants to be.
 
 
 +1
 
 It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or
 ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with
 the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote
 yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ).
 
 I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's
 the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism).
 
 I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a  [VOTE] and
 change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with
 subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is
 volunteering to monitor.
 
 
 IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into
 very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them.
 Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the
 problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others
 think without asking.
 
 Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary
 pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be
 consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other
 think ).
 
 Like:
 
 1. Extend the PMC:
 - to include all committers ( even if the don't want )
 - to include all the comitters who want
 - to include all who want and prove they understand the rules
 
 2. Future extension of the PMC:
  - hand-picking by current people
  - people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code
 and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want.
 
 
 3. Jakarta and TLPs
  - 'encourage' every subproject to TLP
  - let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without
 encouragements
  - 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems
  - do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that
 fit togheter - whatever that means)
  - try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as
 jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him.
 
 4. Is jakarta a good thing ?
  - yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other
 jakarta people
  - no, it's just a mess
  - yes, other projects should do what jakarta does !
 
 
 I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they
 knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary
 vote to indicate what a majority thinks.
 
 And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all
 _committers_ should vote, but only PMC member votes are binding !!!
 That's why people should volunteer for PMC, however this is about
 jakarta and comitters are what jakarata means.
 
 
 Costin
 
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
 
 

Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Harish Krishnaswamy]

Thanks for the update.

I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in private. There should probably be 
a public nomination list with reasons for hand picking (if hand picked) and a public results list 
with just a tally, like how JCP does it (http://jcp.org/en/whatsnew/elections). Also this process of 
electing members in batches of 20 or so is time consuming and cumbersome, I think, unless there is a 
valid reason that this list is not aware of.

-Harish

Henri Yandell wrote:

Currently that doesn't happen. Would be nice if it could, but it just
doesn't fit.
When someone wins a vote, they're invited to join. If they accept, which
they signify by joining the PMC list [the Jakarta Chair moderates it],
then the Jakarta Chair passes their name onto the board and they're meant
to get inked into the committers/board/committee-info.txt file when it's
official.
From the previous batch of 20 or so, there are still 3 people or so who I
didn't hear back from after two email attempts, and the other 17 [made up
numbers] are still not in the committee-info file.
I'm unsure when an announcement to this list would/should happen under the
process above.
The only part that is enforced is the board part, so until someone appears
in committee-info, they're not technically on the PMC. There's a
/committers/pmc/jakarta/pmc-pending.txt file which shows who is currently
waiting addition to the committee-info.
Ideas?

Hen

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:


Thanks, will results be posted here?

-Harish

Henri Yandell wrote:


A vote is on-going at the moment [ends Sunday] for 20 or so people, but
I've not heard of any movement on the plans to increase in a more
aggressive way.
Hen

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:



Anything happening in this regard?

-Harish

Costin Manolache wrote:



Ted Husted wrote:



Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one
on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I
believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the
PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let
each decision-maker decide for himself or herself.




If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to
hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the
PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that
process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided.
Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever
Jakarta wants to be.


+1

It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or
ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with
the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote
yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ).
I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's
the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism).
I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a  [VOTE] and
change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with
subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is
volunteering to monitor.
IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into
very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them.
Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the
problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others
think without asking.
Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary
pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be
consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other
think ).
Like:

1. Extend the PMC:
- to include all committers ( even if the don't want )
- to include all the comitters who want
- to include all who want and prove they understand the rules
2. Future extension of the PMC:
- hand-picking by current people
- people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code
and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want.
3. Jakarta and TLPs
- 'encourage' every subproject to TLP
- let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without
encouragements
- 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems
- do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that
fit togheter - whatever that means)
- try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as
jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him.
4. Is jakarta a good thing ?
- yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other
jakarta people
- no, it's just a mess
- yes, other projects should do what jakarta does !
I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they
knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary
vote to indicate what a majority thinks.
And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all
_committers_ should vote, but only 

RE: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Noel J. Bergman]

 I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in
private.
 There should probably be a public nomination list with reasons for hand
 picking (if hand picked) and a public results list

If you are nominated and not elected people would know.  Otherwise, there is
privacy.  I do agree that when the results are known they could and should
be published.

 Also this process of electing members in batches of 20 or so is time
consuming

The problem is that there are 100s of Commiters, and only a relative handful
of PMC members.  So the PMC members nominated as many people as they knew
from working with.  There are a lot on that list.  Once they are on, I hope
that they will be able to nominate the bulk of the remaining active members.

Time consuming, yes.  Something of an artifact from things getting as out of
hand as they did, so hopefully not something that will need to be repeated.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Henri Yandell]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

  I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in
 private.
  There should probably be a public nomination list with reasons for hand
  picking (if hand picked) and a public results list

 If you are nominated and not elected people would know.  Otherwise, there is
 privacy.  I do agree that when the results are known they could and should
 be published.

Is there any reason for privacy if you are nominated, elected, but choose
not to accept?

Or should I go ahead and publish the list of people who are being
recommended to the board as PMC members [probably a day or so after a
[RESULT] on the pmc list just in case there are arguments over the
results].


Hen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Noel J. Bergman]

Personally, I would send in the list to the board, get it ACK'd, and then
celebrate the results with a public congratulatory notice.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Jan 14, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:



On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in
private.
There should probably be a public nomination list with reasons for 
hand
picking (if hand picked) and a public results list
If you are nominated and not elected people would know.  Otherwise, 
there is
privacy.  I do agree that when the results are known they could and 
should
be published.
Is there any reason for privacy if you are nominated, elected, but 
choose
not to accept?
I don't think so.  We want *everyone* to accept.

Or should I go ahead and publish the list of people who are being
recommended to the board as PMC members [probably a day or so after a
[RESULT] on the pmc list just in case there are arguments over the
results].
Yes - once we get the list complete (based on acceptance)...



Hen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

[Costin Manolache]

Ted Husted wrote:
Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one 
on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I 
believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the 
PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each 
decision-maker decide for himself or herself.



If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to hand-pick 
which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which 
are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing 
but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the 
community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be.
+1

It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or 
ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with 
the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote 
yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ).

I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's 
the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism).

I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a  [VOTE] and 
change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with
subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is 
volunteering to monitor.

IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into 
very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them. 
Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the 
problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others 
think without asking.

Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary 
pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be 
consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other 
think ).

Like:

1. Extend the PMC:
- to include all committers ( even if the don't want )
- to include all the comitters who want
- to include all who want and prove they understand the rules
2. Future extension of the PMC:
 - hand-picking by current people
 - people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the 
code and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want.

3. Jakarta and TLPs
 - 'encourage' every subproject to TLP
 - let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without 
encouragements
 - 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems
 - do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that 
fit togheter - whatever that means)
 - try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as 
jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him.

4. Is jakarta a good thing ?
 - yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other 
jakarta people
 - no, it's just a mess
 - yes, other projects should do what jakarta does !

I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they 
knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary 
vote to indicate what a majority thinks.

And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all 
_committers_ should vote, but only PMC member votes are binding !!! 
That's why people should volunteer for PMC, however this is about 
jakarta and comitters are what jakarata means.

Costin



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Dude...three words:  switch to decaf ;-)

-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.

 From: Tetsuya Kitahata [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Organization: The Apache Software Foundation, Committer
 Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 05:04:32 +0900
 To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: 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]
 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

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

[Harish Krishnaswamy]

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

[Andrew C. Oliver]

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

[Tetsuya Kitahata]

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

[Henri Yandell]

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

[Tetsuya Kitahata]

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

[Tetsuya Kitahata]

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

[Noel J. Bergman]

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

[Tetsuya Kitahata]

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

[Andrew C. Oliver]

 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

[Tetsuya Kitahata]

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]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Ted Husted]

- Original message 
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
SNIP/

I never understand why you keep doing this. There is no 'schism'
between the PMC and the community, and no one is proposing it.
I hate to appeal to authority because the ASF charter does provide a
healthy bit of freedom for any given PMC, but for example, if we want
to follow the model of the httpd project, from which the ASF bylaws
were fashioned, and I know you are a vocal proponent of the 'ASF Way',
it is my understanding they invite committers onto the PMC after some
time after receiving committership when it's clear that is appropriate
for that person. Committing != oversight.
There are people who are committers that may not wish to participate on
the PMC. We want everyone to, but if they aren't *interested* in doing
it, putting them on the PMC achieves nothing, and actually, IMO,
weakens the PMC. There are all sorts of valid reasons to not want to
be on the PMC, I suppose, and we should never stop inviting that
person.
100% should be the goal, not the requirement.



The schism is that the PMC did not elect our committers. In the normal 
course, the body that elects the committers also decides which 
committers (or other interested parties) merit inclusion in the PMC.

However, Jakarta has not done things in the normal course. The PMC did 
not select most of the committers: the subproject communities did. And 
when our community selected the committers they expected that these 
individuals would be the ones actively managing the codebase. The 
community expected these individuals to have the rights and 
responsibilities we now abscribe only to the PMC.

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 does not grant write-access lightly. I think people understand that.

In the normal course, virtually all ASF committers are PMC members, 
because its the committers make the decisions and do the work.

It is true that on occasion an ASF committer will not yet be member of 
the project PMC. Their votes may not be binding, and their commits will 
be scrutinized by PMC members (which is to say other members of the 
development team). But, in due course, the PMC that made them a 
committer also makes them a member.

When our community elected all of our committers, it was with the 
understanding that they were the ones with binding votes, that they were 
the decision makers, that the Jakarta Committers were, in practice, the 
Jakarta PMC.

In my humble opinion, it is the duty of the PMC to now ratify the 
decisions our community has already made. Since we now know that the PMC 
is *not* a steering committee and is in fact the active managers of the 
codebase, we are obligated to finish the job our community started: give 
the committers the legal rights and responsibility that we always 
believed they already had.

Make the committers the PMC, because they are the only true PMC that we 
have ever had.

Each and every one of our committers have earned their stripe. They have 
all proven to the community that they are thoughtful, responsible 
self-starters capable of managing our codebase on the community's 
behalf. These are the individuals that have been creating, maintaining 
and releasing the products we all cherish. These are the individuals 
that have been doing the true work of the PMC.

Where things have gone wrong, they have gone wrong because we were still 
using a bootstrap PMC that excluded all but a few of our decision 
makers. I'm sure that there are Jakarta committers that would be 
unwilling to serve on a bootstrap PMC, but serving on a true, 
inclusive PMC may be a different matter.

Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one 
on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I 
believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the 
PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each 
decision-maker decide for himself or herself.

If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to hand-pick 
which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which 
are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing 
but busy work. The community

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Henri Yandell]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote:

 Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one
 on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I
 believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the
 PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each
 decision-maker decide for himself or herself.

 If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to hand-pick
 which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which
 are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing
 but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the
 community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be.

[In case my actions suggest otherwise]

I'm +0 to this, but do plan to keep pushing the one-by-one [or more
likely, ten-by-ten as it's easier to handle] nominations through because
it works.

If the General list can agree to push all people up, I'll happily
volunteer any time to be spent on that, but until such agreement occurs I
want to at least make a little movement happen.

Hen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Martin Cooper]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote:

 - Original message 
 From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500
 Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

 SNIP/

  I never understand why you keep doing this. There is no 'schism'
  between the PMC and the community, and no one is proposing it.

  I hate to appeal to authority because the ASF charter does provide a
  healthy bit of freedom for any given PMC, but for example, if we want
  to follow the model of the httpd project, from which the ASF bylaws
  were fashioned, and I know you are a vocal proponent of the 'ASF Way',
  it is my understanding they invite committers onto the PMC after some
  time after receiving committership when it's clear that is appropriate
  for that person. Committing != oversight.

  There are people who are committers that may not wish to participate on
  the PMC. We want everyone to, but if they aren't *interested* in doing
  it, putting them on the PMC achieves nothing, and actually, IMO,
  weakens the PMC. There are all sorts of valid reasons to not want to
  be on the PMC, I suppose, and we should never stop inviting that
  person.

  100% should be the goal, not the requirement.

 

 The schism is that the PMC did not elect our committers. In the normal
 course, the body that elects the committers also decides which
 committers (or other interested parties) merit inclusion in the PMC.

 However, Jakarta has not done things in the normal course. The PMC did
 not select most of the committers: the subproject communities did. And
 when our community selected the committers they expected that these
 individuals would be the ones actively managing the codebase. The
 community expected these individuals to have the rights and
 responsibilities we now abscribe only to the PMC.

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.

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 does not grant write-access lightly. I think people understand that.

 In the normal course, virtually all ASF committers are PMC members,
 because its the committers make the decisions and do the work.

 It is true that on occasion an ASF committer will not yet be member of
 the project PMC. Their votes may not be binding, and their commits will
 be scrutinized by PMC members (which is to say other members of the
 development team). But, in due course, the PMC that made them a
 committer also makes them a member.

 When our community elected all of our committers, it was with the
 understanding that they were the ones with binding votes, that they were
 the decision makers, that the Jakarta Committers were, in practice, the
 Jakarta PMC.

 In my humble opinion, it is the duty of the PMC to now ratify the
 decisions our community has already made. Since we now know that the PMC
 is *not* a steering committee and is in fact the active managers of the
 codebase, we are obligated to finish the job our community started: give
 the committers the legal rights and responsibility that we always
 believed they already had.

 Make the committers the PMC, because they are the only true PMC that we
 have ever had.

 Each and every one of our committers have earned their stripe. They have
 all proven to the community that they are thoughtful, responsible
 self-starters capable of managing our codebase

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Harish Krishnaswamy]

Martin Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote:


- Original message 
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
SNIP/

I never understand why you keep doing this. There is no 'schism'
between the PMC and the community, and no one is proposing it.
I hate to appeal to authority because the ASF charter does provide a
healthy bit of freedom for any given PMC, but for example, if we want
to follow the model of the httpd project, from which the ASF bylaws
were fashioned, and I know you are a vocal proponent of the 'ASF Way',
it is my understanding they invite committers onto the PMC after some
time after receiving committership when it's clear that is appropriate
for that person. Committing != oversight.
There are people who are committers that may not wish to participate on
the PMC. We want everyone to, but if they aren't *interested* in doing
it, putting them on the PMC achieves nothing, and actually, IMO,
weakens the PMC. There are all sorts of valid reasons to not want to
be on the PMC, I suppose, and we should never stop inviting that
person.
100% should be the goal, not the requirement.



The schism is that the PMC did not elect our committers. In the normal
course, the body that elects the committers also decides which
committers (or other interested parties) merit inclusion in the PMC.
However, Jakarta has not done things in the normal course. The PMC did
not select most of the committers: the subproject communities did. And
when our community selected the committers they expected that these
individuals would be the ones actively managing the codebase. The
community expected these individuals to have the rights and
responsibilities we now abscribe only to the PMC.


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 :)

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.

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.

-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 does not grant write-access lightly. I think people understand that.
In the normal course, virtually all ASF committers are PMC members,
because its the committers make the decisions and do the work.
It is true that on occasion an ASF committer will not yet be member of
the project PMC. Their votes may not be binding, and their commits will
be scrutinized by PMC members (which is to say other members

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Ted Husted]

- Original message 
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

SNIP/

Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management
(i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.

All active committers should be interested or else they wouldn't be active 
committers.

Oversight is not some otherwordly task to be conducted by an elite subset of our 
committers. IP oversight is something *every* decision-maker should be thinking about 
*every* time they commit a line of code. Consensus oversight is something *every* 
decision-maker should be thinking about *every* time they post to the DEV list. If 
committers aren't thinking about this now, it's only because they have no reporting 
requirements to remind them.

Our community has already decided who its decision-makers should be: the committers.

The Jakarta PMC doesn't need to second-guess the Jakarta community. We simply need to 
ratify the choices the community, in its wisdom, has already made.

Moving forward, we may want to distinguish between newbie committers and the 
silver-haired PMC members. But, as it stands, when each of these committers were 
selected, they were selected to be *the* decision-makers. They were selected to do 
what the PMC does: actively manage the codebase.

We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer decide for 
themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be.

-Ted.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Ted Husted]

- Original message 
From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:12:29 -0800
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

SNIP/

Ted, Stephen - you are free to propose or encourage any subproject to do
whatever you want - but please make clear that this is your personal
opinion or proposal ( unless jakarta PMC or the board votes on this ).
But please start with the projects you are dirrectly involved with :-) -
I don't think it's a good practice to act as a parent for childs you
don't know very well.

In Struts, we are discussing the TLP issue,

http://www.mail-archive.com/struts-dev%40jakarta.apache.org/msg20416.html

but tabled the discussion pending the 1.2.0 release ... which is where I'll be 
spending most of my volunteer time again.

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.)

As mentioned, my core concern is that everyone concerned has been given due notice of 
the disconnect between the original Jakarta guidelines and the status quo. As one of 
the early PMC members, I am partially responsible for that disconnect and need to 
discharge my own responsibilities to the community.

As for the rest of it, I've said my piece, and I'm happy to let Darwin and Consensus 
decide.

Thanks for all the fish. :)

-Ted.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 29, 2003, at 10:17 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

- Original message 
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
SNIP/

Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management
(i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.
All active committers should be interested or else they wouldn't be 
active committers.
Please - interested in participating on the PMC.

Oversight is not some otherwordly task to be conducted by an elite 
subset of our committers. IP oversight is something *every* 
decision-maker should be thinking about *every* time they commit a 
line of code. Consensus oversight is something *every* decision-maker 
should be thinking about *every* time they post to the DEV list. If 
committers aren't thinking about this now, it's only because they have 
no reporting requirements to remind them.
Ted, we all agree.

Our community has already decided who its decision-makers should be: 
the committers.

The Jakarta PMC doesn't need to second-guess the Jakarta community. We 
simply need to ratify the choices the community, in its wisdom, has 
already made.

Moving forward, we may want to distinguish between newbie committers 
and the silver-haired PMC members. But, as it stands, when each of 
these committers were selected, they were selected to be *the* 
decision-makers. They were selected to do what the PMC does: actively 
manage the codebase.

We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer 
decide for themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to 
be.
I never understand why you keep doing this.  There is no 'schism' 
between the PMC and the community, and no one is proposing it.

I hate to appeal to authority because the ASF charter does provide a 
healthy bit of freedom for any given PMC, but for example, if we want 
to follow the model of the httpd project, from which the ASF bylaws 
were fashioned, and I know you are a vocal proponent of the 'ASF Way', 
it is my understanding they invite committers onto the PMC after some 
time after receiving committership when it's clear that is appropriate 
for that person.  Committing != oversight.

There are people who are committers that may not wish to participate on 
the PMC.  We want everyone to, but if they aren't *interested* in doing 
it, putting them on the PMC achieves nothing, and actually, IMO, 
weakens the PMC.  There are all sorts of valid reasons to not want to 
be on the PMC, I suppose, and we should never stop inviting that 
person.

100% should be the goal, not the requirement.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Danny Angus]

 We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer 
 decide for themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be.

+1 I totally agree, and I would hope that no one seriously holds any other view.

Concern about oversight has been flagged as an issue for us to address and we are duty 
bound to explore the ways in which we can achieve this. 
I would hope that by debating the issue we are bringing it to the wider attention of 
our community, and disseminating fact and opinion (perhaps, indeed, for a third or 
fourth time) which will help to inform the actions of every commiter and PMC member 
and bring us closer to our goal without any radical or authoritarian steps being 
required. 
Frankly I would regard either step as being at best a partial failure, and at worst 
potentially more damaging to the community than any failure to _quickly_ resolve the 
situation. 
I still believe that by continuing to have an open debate we are making progress, and 
I hope that others can see how frank and honest examination of the various opinions 
and potential directions is in itself vital to bind and re-unify the project and 
engage the whole community in shaping our mutual future.

At the end of the day (Oh I hate it when I say that!) the most important asset we have 
is each other, and we have nothing to keep us here apart from the attraction of a 
healthy community, it is not bylaws or oversight or promotion that should be the focus 
of our efforts to restore some balance, rather it should be the community, and through 
the actions of a united community we will achieve the technical requirements of 
procedure and oversight in much the same way that a healty community will produce high 
quality software with very little management effort required.



d.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

+1!

On Dec 29, 2003, at 6:01 PM, Danny Angus wrote:


We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer
decide for themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to 
be.
+1 I totally agree, and I would hope that no one seriously holds any 
other view.

Concern about oversight has been flagged as an issue for us to address 
and we are duty bound to explore the ways in which we can achieve 
this.
I would hope that by debating the issue we are bringing it to the 
wider attention of our community, and disseminating fact and opinion 
(perhaps, indeed, for a third or fourth time) which will help to 
inform the actions of every commiter and PMC member and bring us 
closer to our goal without any radical or authoritarian steps being 
required.
Frankly I would regard either step as being at best a partial failure, 
and at worst potentially more damaging to the community than any 
failure to _quickly_ resolve the situation.
I still believe that by continuing to have an open debate we are 
making progress, and I hope that others can see how frank and honest 
examination of the various opinions and potential directions is in 
itself vital to bind and re-unify the project and engage the whole 
community in shaping our mutual future.

At the end of the day (Oh I hate it when I say that!) the most 
important asset we have is each other, and we have nothing to keep us 
here apart from the attraction of a healthy community, it is not 
bylaws or oversight or promotion that should be the focus of our 
efforts to restore some balance, rather it should be the community, 
and through the actions of a united community we will achieve the 
technical requirements of procedure and oversight in much the same way 
that a healty community will produce high quality software with very 
little management effort required.



d.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen Colebourne]

There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour
of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd
place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.

Background info:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges

Stephen

PROPOSAL
The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top Level
Project (TLP) status.

It shall do this by
- drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings
- explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a
subproject's rights
- documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs
- produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP
- clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation
- proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists
- setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes

In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be those
of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, with
the exact list to be determined by the dev list.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 9:39 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks 
for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to 
Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us.
The board isn't hassling.  They have valid concerns that they know we 
are working on, and they are even helping.  This doesn't mean we are 
out of the woods by any means, but we're not being hassled.

 This could be because this is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in 
favour
of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought 
I'd
place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.

Background info:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
Stephen

PROPOSAL
The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top 
Level
Project (TLP) status.

It shall do this by
- drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings
- explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a
subproject's rights
- documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs
- produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP
- clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation
- proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists
- setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes
In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be 
those
of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, 
with
the exact list to be determined by the dev list.

-1 from me

I fully support and respect sup-projects deciding on their own to leave 
Jakarta and be a TLP if they feel it's better for their community and 
code, but I see no reason for the PMC to make it their purpose on life 
to encourage them.  Seems rather pointless.  You might as well just 
disband Jakarta and save everyone time.

geir



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Ted Husted]

+1

I agree that interested volunteers should:

* setup a Wiki area describing the TLP process and rationales , AND

* give notice to each and every Jakarta DEV list that the area exists.

My main beef is that we have not done due diligence in alerting ALL of the subprojects 
of the latest developments.

I've outlined a wiki page as described by this proposal 
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectApplication, 
and setup a draft TLP resolution.

I would also volunteer to subscribe to each of the DEV lists and post a message 
pointing them to the archive of this thread. (Unless another volunteer already has an 
account setup to do such things. )

Whether a subproject follows through or not can be totally up to each subproject. The 
important thing is that we do the due diligence in making sure *everyone* concerned 
has been apprised.

-Ted.


- Original message 
From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:39:30 +
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour
of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd
place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.

SNIP/



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Noel J. Bergman]

Geir,

I agree with everything that you said, except one.  You have the idea that
when a project moves to TLP status it leaves Jakarta, and that saddens you.
You said the same thing when Logging was promoted, and Ceki tried to
reassure you that it wasn't going far.

Although I concur that projects that been promoted to TLP status have
reduced their ties somewhat with Jakarta, that need not be the case.  If you
want Jakarta to be an active community hub, it can be so without a
monolothic PMC.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir,

I agree with everything that you said, except one.  You have the idea 
that
when a project moves to TLP status it leaves Jakarta, and that saddens 
you.
In the above sentence, there is one correct statement :

.. when a project moves to TLP status, it leaves Jakarta.

(this is a correct and true statement) and one sort-of correct 
statement :

... and that saddens you.

As it's bitter-sweet - it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta 
and continue to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving 
a friend after a visit.

What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.

You said the same thing when Logging was promoted, and Ceki tried to
reassure you that it wasn't going far.
I was 100% supportive of logging going, and hope to see it prosper. 
However, it did go. :)

Although I concur that projects that been promoted to TLP status have
reduced their ties somewhat with Jakarta, that need not be the case.  
If you
want Jakarta to be an active community hub, it can be so without a
monolothic PMC.
Jakarta will always have a PMC.  Unless the board changes the Jakarta 
PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and 
communications of Jakarta.  We may allow other Apache projects to have 
links and resources on our website, for example, but as it is the 
Jakarta PMC legally required to oversee such resources and activities, 
it's entirely up to us.

geir

 --
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

+1

I agree that interested volunteers should:

* setup a Wiki area describing the TLP process and rationales , AND
Do you think we all should setup our own individual Wiki page, or work  
together?  I'm getting the feeling you don't want to work together on  
this.

* give notice to each and every Jakarta DEV list that the area exists.

My main beef is that we have not done due diligence in alerting ALL of  
the subprojects of the latest developments.
What 'developments'?  We are discussing things here on general@, and as  
far as I can see, we have no developments yet.  Ted, you seem to be in  
a terrible hurry to push this through.  Can you wait until people come  
back from the holiday break and read and catch up?  the point of doing  
things here is to *increase* participation, not reduce it by rushing  
something through during a generally world-wide western holiday.

I've outlined a wiki page as described by this proposal  
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi? 
JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectApplication, and setup a draft TLP  
resolution.

I would also volunteer to subscribe to each of the DEV lists and post  
a message pointing them to the archive of this thread. (Unless another  
volunteer already has an account setup to do such things. )
Instead of doing it yourself, why not try to work w/in the PMC  
structure and get a message that we all agree on, and have one person  
from each project on the PMC send to their community.  It would be a  
good step in the direction you just were espousing in a different  
thread, namely increased participation.

Whether a subproject follows through or not can be totally up to each  
subproject. The important thing is that we do the due diligence in  
making sure *everyone* concerned has been apprised.
LOL. There is no legal requirement that any arbitrary idea that a  
person has *must* be propagated directly to the dev list of each  
sub-project.  Let others join in this...

-Ted.

- Original message 
From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:39:30 +
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks  
for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to  
Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this  
is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in  
favour
of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I  
thought I'd
place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
SNIP/



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen Colebourne]

I have added to the wiki
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectAppli
cation a section on board meeting dates (Jan 21st according to the
archives). (If anyone knows a better source, or more dates, please update
the wiki).

Any suggestions of someone who could comment on the TLP promotion
experience. Perhaps Ant or Logging?

I suggest we wait before contacting the dev lists until the wiki is more
complete.
Stephen

From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree that interested volunteers should:
* setup a Wiki area describing the TLP process and rationales , AND
* give notice to each and every Jakarta DEV list that the area exists.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Ted Husted]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

 +1

 I agree that interested volunteers should:

 * setup a Wiki area describing the TLP process and rationales , AND

Do you think we all should setup our own individual Wiki page, or work
together?  I'm getting the feeling you don't want to work together on
this.


 * give notice to each and every Jakarta DEV list that the area exists.

 My main beef is that we have not done due diligence in alerting ALL of
 the subprojects of the latest developments.

What 'developments'?  We are discussing things here on general@, and as
far as I can see, we have no developments yet.  Ted, you seem to be in
a terrible hurry to push this through.  Can you wait until people come
back from the holiday break and read and catch up?  the point of doing
things here is to *increase* participation, not reduce it by rushing
something through during a generally world-wide western holiday.


 I've outlined a wiki page as described by this proposal
 http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?
 JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectApplication, and setup a draft TLP
 resolution.

 I would also volunteer to subscribe to each of the DEV lists and post
 a message pointing them to the archive of this thread. (Unless another
 volunteer already has an account setup to do such things. )

Instead of doing it yourself, why not try to work w/in the PMC
structure and get a message that we all agree on, and have one person
from each project on the PMC send to their community.  It would be a
good step in the direction you just were espousing in a different
thread, namely increased participation.


 Whether a subproject follows through or not can be totally up to each
 subproject. The important thing is that we do the due diligence in
 making sure *everyone* concerned has been apprised.

LOL. There is no legal requirement that any arbitrary idea that a
person has *must* be propagated directly to the dev list of each 
sub-project.  Let others join in this...


 -Ted.


 - Original message 
 From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:39:30 +
 Subject: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

 There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks
 for the
 sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to
 Jakarta in
 the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this
 is the
 consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in
 favour
 of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I
 thought I'd
 place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.

 SNIP/



 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen Colebourne]

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.
To use an analogy, its like being the parents of a family, where the
children, aged from 4 to 40, are all living at home. It strikes me that it
isn't healthy for that 40 year old to be living at home, expecting his
parents to do the washing, feed him and make his bed. Instead, the good
parent should be gently enabling the child to set out on their own in the
next phase of their life.

Sometimes letting go is the hardest part of being a parent.

Stephen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Ted Husted]

- Original message 
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:11:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

 +1

 I agree that interested volunteers should:

 * setup a Wiki area describing the TLP process and rationales , AND

Do you think we all should setup our own individual Wiki page, or work
together?  I'm getting the feeling you don't want to work together on
this.

Steve made a proposal I supported, so I demonstrated my support by pitching in.

AFAIK, there's no such thing as a personal wiki page (which Steve has already 
proven).


 * give notice to each and every Jakarta DEV list that the area exists.

 My main beef is that we have not done due diligence in alerting ALL of
 the subprojects of the latest developments.

What 'developments'?  We are discussing things here on general@, and as
far as I can see, we have no developments yet.  Ted, you seem to be in
a terrible hurry to push this through.  Can you wait until people come
back from the holiday break and read and catch up?  the point of doing
things here is to *increase* participation, not reduce it by rushing
something through during a generally world-wide western holiday.

I had some time over the holidays myself, so I put together a proposal that reflected 
how I believe we should proceed. Other people responded to that, so I made some 
changes and issued another draft. There were other threads that seemed related to that 
proposal, so I tried to draw them together to see if we could build a consensus.

All I've done is make a proposal for the community to review at its leisure. If a 
consensus were to develop, I'd volunteer to move it along. If not, the kids need shoes 
...


 I've outlined a wiki page as described by this proposal
 http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?
 JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectApplication, and setup a draft TLP 
 resolution.

 I would also volunteer to subscribe to each of the DEV lists and post
 a message pointing them to the archive of this thread. (Unless another
 volunteer already has an account setup to do such things. )

Instead of doing it yourself, why not try to work w/in the PMC 
structure and get a message that we all agree on, and have one person
from each project on the PMC send to their community.  It would be a
good step in the direction you just were espousing in a different
thread, namely increased participation.

Committers commit. I believe it's something that should be done, so I volunteered to 
do it.

I also mentioned if someone else were ready and willing to do it, I'd be happy to step 
aside.


 Whether a subproject follows through or not can be totally up to each
 subproject. The important thing is that we do the due diligence in
 making sure *everyone* concerned has been apprised.

LOL. There is no legal requirement that any arbitrary idea that a
person has *must* be propagated directly to the dev list of each
sub-project.  Let others join in this...

My point is that  there is a social and ethical requirement to inform the committers 
of the status quo. There are many ways in which the points covered on the 
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges wiki page 
conflict with the original guidelines.  The only way to ensure everyone is aware of 
the status quo is for a posting to be made to every DEV list. Since I've served on the 
PMC,  I feel jointly responsible for erroneous information. I don't discharge my 
responsibilities lightly.

I guess all that I'm really asking is that a posting be circulated to each DEV list 
regarding the proposed changes.  As mentioned, I'd be happy to do this myself, or 
help someone else do it, so long as it was done.

-Ted.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.
To use an analogy, its like being the parents of a family, where the
children, aged from 4 to 40, are all living at home. It strikes me 
that it
isn't healthy for that 40 year old to be living at home, expecting his
parents to do the washing, feed him and make his bed. Instead, the good
parent should be gently enabling the child to set out on their own in 
the
next phase of their life.

Sometimes letting go is the hardest part of being a parent.
It's a good analogy, but makes the assumption that the Jakarta PMC will 
do for the sub-projects whatever is analogous to the care for children 
- washing, feeding and bed making.

In fact (from my POV anyway), the Jakarta PMC has done no such thing in 
the past, and should do no such thing in the future. [Some proposals 
seem to want to enforce bed-making and ironing, but I don't think we 
should do that...]

All we're trying to do is get the PMC populated w/ as many committers 
as possible, educated as to what oversight means, to satisfy the 
oversight requirements of the ASF.That's not something to take 
lightly, but it doesn't mandate additional process, control and 
procedure either.  The board or ASF by-laws require no such 
scaffolding.

Things will continue to be community-centered and decisions 
community-led.  Sub-projects still govern their own activities.  The 
PMC - composed of all the sub-projects - just makes those activities 
legal, in line w/ the oversight requirements of the ASF, and w/ proper 
education of the PMC members, helps catch problems.

By becoming a TLP, a sub-project has changed nothing other than remove 
some antiquated-and-should-be-changed Jakarta charter restrictions, and 
removed itself from the larger community that is Jakarta.   And yes, I 
recognize that people don't believe me about the last point.  :)

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Noel J. Bergman]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

 it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta and continue
 to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving
 a friend after a visit.

I understand.  And I understand why you view Jakarta that way.  Why do you
not feel that Jakarta could be an active community hub, as has been the
subject of several discussions?

 Jakarta will always have a PMC.  Unless the board changes the Jakarta
 PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and
 communications of Jakarta.

The Jakarta PMC must oversee all codebases within its project.  This
implies that we should start by adding almost all currently active
Committers to the Jakarta PMC.  That is something the PMC could do,
pro-actively, right now without further delay.  Taking that action would
mean that the majority of Committers would be on the PMC and general lists,
improving the ability of the PMC to represent a true consensus of where
Jakarta should go, and addressing a concern that we both share regard
educating the Committers about their oversight responsibilities.

Personally, I don't feel that a 400+ person PMC overseeing dozens of
codebases represents a truely functional solution, but we can give it a go.
It is my belief that subsequently more projects are going to want to seek
TLP status, and that we will be all the better for it in terms of oversight
and direct participation.  So the question remains whether Jakarta should
turn itself into a hub, so that when the subprojects acquire TLP status,
they aren't forced to leave the community.

 it's entirely up to us.

Exactly.  :-)

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Costin Manolache]

Stephen Colebourne wrote:
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.
To use an analogy, its like being the parents of a family, where the
children, aged from 4 to 40, are all living at home. It strikes me that it
isn't healthy for that 40 year old to be living at home, expecting his
parents to do the washing, feed him and make his bed. Instead, the good
parent should be gently enabling the child to set out on their own in the
next phase of their life.
Sometimes letting go is the hardest part of being a parent.

Stephen
So you consider jakarta subprojects as some children, the PMC that makes 
the bed and feeds them ? ( and the board as the big brother I suppose:-)?

I don't know where did you get this idea, but it seems there are quite a 
few people who feel like big brothers who know what's better for the 
childish jakarta projects and would like to encourage them to do what 
they think is best.

I see jakarta more like a union ( EU-style ), were the different 
projects that joined are mature entities that choose to
be part of jakarta ( and can choose to get out - all that's needed is a 
vote ).  And the PMC role is to make sure the rules are respected ( 
oversight ) - not to wash/feed/make the bed for subprojects.

So I'm -1 on your proposal ( if you care counting - it seems most people
who propose pushing projects to TLP would do anything to reach this goal 
- except proposing this in the sub-projects they participate in and 
counting the resulting votes ).



Costin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Costin Manolache]

I think I missed the VOTE thread where this proposal has been approved.
So far I've seen 2 +1 and 2 -1 votes ( including mine ), this doesn't 
seem like a consensus. It's better to wait for the vote to finish ( and 
it would be nice to have a [VOTE] thread and a time limit ) before 
starting to do it.

Ted, Stephen - you are free to propose or encourage any subproject to do 
whatever you want - but please make clear that this is your personal 
opinion or proposal ( unless jakarta PMC or the board votes on this ).
But please start with the projects you are dirrectly involved with :-) -
I don't think it's a good practice to act as a parent for childs you
don't know very well.

Costin



Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

+1

I agree that interested volunteers should:

* setup a Wiki area describing the TLP process and rationales , AND


Do you think we all should setup our own individual Wiki page, or work  
together?  I'm getting the feeling you don't want to work together on  
this.

* give notice to each and every Jakarta DEV list that the area exists.

My main beef is that we have not done due diligence in alerting ALL 
of  the subprojects of the latest developments.


What 'developments'?  We are discussing things here on general@, and as  
far as I can see, we have no developments yet.  Ted, you seem to be in  
a terrible hurry to push this through.  Can you wait until people come  
back from the holiday break and read and catch up?  the point of doing  
things here is to *increase* participation, not reduce it by rushing  
something through during a generally world-wide western holiday.

I've outlined a wiki page as described by this proposal  
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi? 
JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectApplication, and setup a draft TLP  resolution.

I would also volunteer to subscribe to each of the DEV lists and post  
a message pointing them to the archive of this thread. (Unless 
another  volunteer already has an account setup to do such things. )


Instead of doing it yourself, why not try to work w/in the PMC  
structure and get a message that we all agree on, and have one person  
from each project on the PMC send to their community.  It would be a  
good step in the direction you just were espousing in a different  
thread, namely increased participation.

Whether a subproject follows through or not can be totally up to each  
subproject. The important thing is that we do the due diligence in  
making sure *everyone* concerned has been apprised.


LOL. There is no legal requirement that any arbitrary idea that a  
person has *must* be propagated directly to the dev list of each  
sub-project.  Let others join in this...

-Ted.

- Original message 
From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:39:30 +
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks  
for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to  
Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this  
is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in  
favour
of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I  
thought I'd
place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.


SNIP/



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Noel J. Bergman]

Costin Manolache wrote:
 I see jakarta more like a union ( EU-style ), were the different
 projects that joined are mature entities that choose to be part
 of jakarta ( and can choose to get out - all that's needed is a
 vote ).  And the PMC role is to make sure the rules are respected

Project maturity aside, I was with you up until the last sentence.  The PMC
is supposed to be performing the active management of one or more
projects, not ensuring that other people are doing it.  The PMC is not
supposed to be a body of auditors.  I see your analogy as describing
self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC, who operate a
collective for the common good.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Danny Angus]

-1

I don't think the PMC should be doing anything other than encouraging sub-projects to 
*consider* TLP at this stage.

The proposal contains a number of detailed actions most of which I'd wholeheartedly 
support as they will help sub-projects to consider pro's and con's of promotion. 

However I think it is inappropriate to be talking about proactively encouraging 
proposal then vote. 
I would much rather that individuals who are active participants in the sub-project 
reach this stage, or don't, without having being prompted by the PMC.

For the record I think that many sub-projects would benefit from promotion, but not 
all of them, but I think the process would be made much harder is the sub-project is 
hustled into applying before the participants are really comfortable with the nature 
and consequences of the change.

d.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 1:42 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta and continue
to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving
a friend after a visit.
I understand.  And I understand why you view Jakarta that way.  Why do 
you
not feel that Jakarta could be an active community hub, as has been the
subject of several discussions?
I just don't think it will happen.  It will be a website at best, and a 
bad website at worst.

As an example, look at the difference between Jakarta Commons to Apache 
Commons.


Jakarta will always have a PMC.  Unless the board changes the Jakarta
PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and
communications of Jakarta.
The Jakarta PMC must oversee all codebases within its project.
And it's website, the project websites, the mail lists and the usage of 
CVS.

  This
implies that we should start by adding almost all currently active
Committers to the Jakarta PMC.
That's what we're trying to do.

 That is something the PMC could do,
pro-actively, right now without further delay.  Taking that action 
would
mean that the majority of Committers would be on the PMC and general 
lists,
improving the ability of the PMC to represent a true consensus of where
Jakarta should go, and addressing a concern that we both share regard
educating the Committers about their oversight responsibilities.
But we've discussed this, and just glomming everyone wouldn't result in 
the best outcome as we want to make sure that people are explicitly 
signing up for project oversight, rather than being drafted to meet a 
quota.

Personally, I don't feel that a 400+ person PMC overseeing dozens of
codebases represents a truely functional solution, but we can give it 
a go.
I can't see why not.  The point of oversight is to catch the cases 
where things aren't right (i.e. code comes into the CVS that shouldn't 
w/o incubation) rather than continuously report when things are going 
well.

It is my belief that subsequently more projects are going to want to 
seek
TLP status, and that we will be all the better for it in terms of 
oversight
and direct participation.  So the question remains whether Jakarta 
should
turn itself into a hub, so that when the subprojects acquire TLP 
status,
they aren't forced to leave the community.
I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous 
additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC.  I 
would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight 
independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of 
work.

The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community 
versus Jakarta as a website.

Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might 
illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say.

geir


it's entirely up to us.
Exactly.  :-)

	--- Noel

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 3:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Costin Manolache wrote:
I see jakarta more like a union ( EU-style ), were the different
projects that joined are mature entities that choose to be part
of jakarta ( and can choose to get out - all that's needed is a
vote ).  And the PMC role is to make sure the rules are respected
Project maturity aside, I was with you up until the last sentence.
Then you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :)  Talk about 
over-regulation...

 The PMC
is supposed to be performing the active management of one or more
projects, not ensuring that other people are doing it.  The PMC is not
supposed to be a body of auditors.  I see your analogy as describing
self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC, who operate a
collective for the common good.
Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management 
(i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.

geir

	--- Noel

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 3:49 PM, Danny Angus wrote:

-1

I don't think the PMC should be doing anything other than encouraging 
sub-projects to *consider* TLP at this stage.
I don't even think they should do that.  I don't think the PMC should 
take a position either way.  I don't think there should be any 
communication that can even be confused as coming from the PMC.

The proposal contains a number of detailed actions most of which I'd 
wholeheartedly support as they will help sub-projects to consider 
pro's and con's of promotion.

However I think it is inappropriate to be talking about proactively 
encouraging proposal then vote.
I would much rather that individuals who are active participants in 
the sub-project reach this stage, or don't, without having being 
prompted by the PMC.

For the record I think that many sub-projects would benefit from 
promotion, but not all of them, but I think the process would be made 
much harder is the sub-project is hustled into applying before the 
participants are really comfortable with the nature and consequences 
of the change.
And I think that once we have the PMC enlarged with all active, 
interested committers, these kinds of discussions and awareness will be 
a natural, open thing, not requiring any special schemes or campaigns

geir

d.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen Colebourne]

Firstly, having details collected together in one place for 'how to become a
TLP' is a good thing IMHO. I doubt you are asking us to deny information to
subprojects, are you?

Secondly, I am acting because I have been the responsibility to act. As a
Jakarta PMC member I have direct responsibility for ALL Jakarta subprojects.
I am trying to discharge that responsibilty as best I can. If I were
unwilling to to this then I should resign, which I don't feel like doing
quite yet.

Thirdly, this was marked as a proposal, and was asking for views to
determine whether a consensus or vote should be held. I believe I do have
the right to start a proposal thread. I was also concerned that those
members of this list who support a sticking plaster approach were becoming
the only voices heard.

Finally, the time to vote on Jakarta-Commons is not now, because, as has
been pointed out, of the holidays. I would also suggest that J-C contains
many of the people talking on this list, so debating here is not without
merit. (ie. J-C is unique amongst all dev lists in participation from other
Jakarta subprojects - it might also naturally inherit the Jakarta name if
all other subprojects left, which complicates the vote)

Stephen

From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Ted, Stephen - you are free to propose or encourage any subproject to do
 whatever you want - but please make clear that this is your personal
 opinion or proposal ( unless jakarta PMC or the board votes on this ).
 But please start with the projects you are dirrectly involved with :-) -
 I don't think it's a good practice to act as a parent for childs you
 don't know very well.


 Costin



 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
 
  On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
 
  +1
 
  I agree that interested volunteers should:
 
  * setup a Wiki area describing the TLP process and rationales , AND
 
 
  Do you think we all should setup our own individual Wiki page, or work
  together?  I'm getting the feeling you don't want to work together on
  this.
 
 
  * give notice to each and every Jakarta DEV list that the area exists.
 
  My main beef is that we have not done due diligence in alerting ALL
  of  the subprojects of the latest developments.
 
 
  What 'developments'?  We are discussing things here on general@, and as
  far as I can see, we have no developments yet.  Ted, you seem to be in
  a terrible hurry to push this through.  Can you wait until people come
  back from the holiday break and read and catch up?  the point of doing
  things here is to *increase* participation, not reduce it by rushing
  something through during a generally world-wide western holiday.
 
 
  I've outlined a wiki page as described by this proposal
  http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?
  JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectApplication, and setup a draft TLP
resolution.
 
  I would also volunteer to subscribe to each of the DEV lists and post
  a message pointing them to the archive of this thread. (Unless
  another  volunteer already has an account setup to do such things. )
 
 
  Instead of doing it yourself, why not try to work w/in the PMC
  structure and get a message that we all agree on, and have one person
  from each project on the PMC send to their community.  It would be a
  good step in the direction you just were espousing in a different
  thread, namely increased participation.
 
 
  Whether a subproject follows through or not can be totally up to each
  subproject. The important thing is that we do the due diligence in
  making sure *everyone* concerned has been apprised.
 
 
  LOL. There is no legal requirement that any arbitrary idea that a
  person has *must* be propagated directly to the dev list of each
  sub-project.  Let others join in this...
 
 
  -Ted.
 
 
  - Original message 
  From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:39:30 +
  Subject: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
 
  There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks
  for the
  sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to
  Jakarta in
  the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this
  is the
  consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in
  favour
  of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I
  thought I'd
  place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
 
 
  SNIP/
 
 
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen Colebourne]

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
 additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC.  I
 would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight
 independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of
 work.
Well this is a key point. I believe that now I am a Jakarta PMC member I
have direct responsibility for ALL subprojects. Given the breadth of Jakarta
this is a ridiculous position. So, it is more work. Much more work. For
example, I have spent much less time coding in the last 4 weeks. And thats
just plain wrong.

If I'm not careful, I'll go crazy like Robert. So I may choose to leave the
PMC. Others will too, either actually resign, or just ignore it. Oversight
is NOT increased - the basic approach of sign 'em up is flawed.

 The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community
 versus Jakarta as a website.
The communities are the subprojects.

 Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might
 illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say.
Sorry, but I don't get you. A-C was a board invention. If it didn't exist
then J-C would be able to TLP cleanly. Perhaps you need to explain more. In
fact, perhaps you should set out in a separate thread as to where you see
Jakarta in 3-6 months time.

Stephen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 4:44 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC.  I
would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight
independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of
work.
Well this is a key point. I believe that now I am a Jakarta PMC member 
I
have direct responsibility for ALL subprojects. Given the breadth of 
Jakarta
this is a ridiculous position. So, it is more work. Much more work. For
example, I have spent much less time coding in the last 4 weeks. And 
thats
just plain wrong.
We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that 
states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever 
part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key 
word is directly.

Think about it.  How could this possibly work in ANY ASF project of any 
useful size?  You couldn't do a Commons TLP (be it A-C or J-C) if every 
participant was directly and personally responsible for every shred of 
activity.

Here is what the ASF bylaws say :

Subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, the chairman of 
each Project Management Committee shall be primarily responsible for 
project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she shall establish 
rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for 
which the committee is responsible

A reasonable person should *not* read this to mean the PMC chair is 
directly, actively responsible in that he or she must read every 
commit, watch ever mail list, and see every site and wiki change - 
rather he or she is able and required to organize the day-to-day 
management as he or she sees fit (subject to board approval) such that 
all code, site, mail and wiki's are covered by active, responsible 
oversight.  In the event that the management does *not* do this, the 
chair is responsible, but that's a huge difference from the 'every 
shred' model.

Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one 
committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand 
the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the 
Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is scalable, 
and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC.

Isn't that reasonable?

If I'm not careful, I'll go crazy like Robert. So I may choose to 
leave the
PMC. Others will too, either actually resign, or just ignore it. 
Oversight
is NOT increased - the basic approach of sign 'em up is flawed.
sign 'em up is flawed, but not for the reason above (which I think is 
simply a misunderstanding on your part.)  It's flawed because we can't 
assert that those tasked with oversight (of their projects) on behalf 
of the ASF as PMC member is doing their job is they didn't ask to do it 
and/or be trained to do it.  I first floated the 'deputize them all' 
approach on the PMC list a while ago, and I'll be the first to say that 
I was wrong.


The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community
versus Jakarta as a website.
The communities are the subprojects.
And the subprojects together are also a community.  I'm not the only 
one that recognizes this.


Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might
illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say.
Sorry, but I don't get you. A-C was a board invention. If it didn't 
exist
then J-C would be able to TLP cleanly. Perhaps you need to explain 
more. In
fact, perhaps you should set out in a separate thread as to where you 
see
Jakarta in 3-6 months time.
I'll be happy to do the latter.  As for the former:

A-C was a board invention, as you note, and I think a well-intentioned 
one.  However, after 14 months, it has a single codebase (a http client 
written in C).

J-C was a 'bottom-up' effort of multiple people in the Jakarta 
community from many *different* sub-projects that self-organized, 
debated independently (and incessantly) about the charter, presented 
the proposal to the PMC, had it approved and then rolled up their 
sleeves and got to work, with the resulting vibrant, productive 
community.

The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force 
behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion 
that Jakarta as a whole is also a community.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Noel J. Bergman]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

 you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :)  Talk about
 over-regulation...

LOL  :-)  OK, so it is a bad analogy.  I don't believe that either Costin or
I live in the EU.

  The PMC is supposed to be performing the active management of one or
  more projects, not ensuring that other people are doing it.  The PMC
  is not supposed to be a body of auditors.  I see your analogy as
  describing self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC,
  who operate a collective for the common good.

 Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management
 (i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.

As I've said, let's do it.  Get them on.  And then see which projects decide
to form their own PMC.  The issue I was commenting on is not to lose a sense
of community with those projects who choose to form their own PMC.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen Colebourne]

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that
 states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever
 part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key
 word is directly.
As a PMC member, I should care whether there is a new Tapestry release, or a
new Lucene committer. These are PMC votes (or should be). But I don't care
(especially ;-). Thus there is a tension between my mandated responsibility
and my actual interests.

This aspect of 'do I care' is key. I read every vote on J-C, I may not
choose to vote (since adding lots of +0's wastes space), but I care about
the release or new committer. But I don't care about Lucene. Not one jot.
Yet I have equal responsibility for it. This just isn't right.

All I have heard from the original ASF projects indicate to me that the PMC
should represent one codebase and one tight community. Anything else leads
to a layer of management separate from the codebase (aka Jakarta PMC). All
the current debates exist because we have a layer of management which we do
not need.

These debates waste vast amounts of time and energy. Thus PMC members are
given the choice:
- debate/manage continuously and don't code,  or
- code and ignore the PMC
I'm unusual in that I'm bothering putting any effort at all into the former.
It won't be long before I'll give up and do the latter. Your POV will win on
the PMC because everyone else has better things to do than argue incesantly.


 Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one
 committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand
 the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the
 Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is scalable,
 and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC.

 Isn't that reasonable?
No. What you are arguing for is just not human nature. As long as there is a
PMC away from the dev list, with other people from the dev list, with other
responsibilities and issues, people will not associate with it. People look
after what they own, and don't care about what they don't own. They may be
on the PMC in name, but that simply isn't enough. It really isn't.


 The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force
 behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion
 that Jakarta as a whole is also a community.
The question that we cannot know the answer to (without a time machine) is
whether the same result would have occurred if Jakarta had not existed. ie.
Is J-C a product of Jakarta, or a product of the need for shared Java code.
You believe its the former, I wasn't around so can't really comment, however
I see no great reason why exactly the same J-C couldn't have occurred
without Jakarta.

Stephen



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

I'll try to be brief.  I agree w/ you - I don't want to have to watch 
ever project.  I'm also not interested in endless debate.  I'm also not 
interested in legislation, process or overbearing procedure. And I'm 
not interested in breaking up Jakarta.  All I want to do is get CLAs 
signed and maximize participation on the PMC that covers all projects 
to satisfy the ASF oversight requirements.

My only concern about Lucene (to use your example) is that the code 
that comes into the ASF's CVS is free from any problems of provenance, 
and that the releases are done with the support of the Lucene 
community, and I would be comfortable w/ that if I knew that the active 
participants of the Lucene community were on the PMC and understood 
what the PMC does.

(Note that we are not advocating any layer of management separate from 
the codebase, and have not had that to date.)

As I think that your view of your responsibilities as a PMC members is 
mistaken. I'll ask for a clarification of the responsibilities from 
someone outside of Jakarta w/ no stake in this debate.  I too have no 
interest in being forced to be involved w/ any project other than those 
I choose to participate in.

geir

On Dec 28, 2003, at 7:05 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that
states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever
part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key
word is directly.
As a PMC member, I should care whether there is a new Tapestry 
release, or a
new Lucene committer. These are PMC votes (or should be). But I don't 
care
(especially ;-). Thus there is a tension between my mandated 
responsibility
and my actual interests.

This aspect of 'do I care' is key. I read every vote on J-C, I may not
choose to vote (since adding lots of +0's wastes space), but I care 
about
the release or new committer. But I don't care about Lucene. Not one 
jot.
Yet I have equal responsibility for it. This just isn't right.

All I have heard from the original ASF projects indicate to me that 
the PMC
should represent one codebase and one tight community. Anything else 
leads
to a layer of management separate from the codebase (aka Jakarta PMC). 
All
the current debates exist because we have a layer of management which 
we do
not need.

These debates waste vast amounts of time and energy. Thus PMC members 
are
given the choice:
- debate/manage continuously and don't code,  or
- code and ignore the PMC
I'm unusual in that I'm bothering putting any effort at all into the 
former.
It won't be long before I'll give up and do the latter. Your POV will 
win on
the PMC because everyone else has better things to do than argue 
incesantly.


Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one
committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand
the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the
Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is 
scalable,
and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC.

Isn't that reasonable?
No. What you are arguing for is just not human nature. As long as 
there is a
PMC away from the dev list, with other people from the dev list, with 
other
responsibilities and issues, people will not associate with it. People 
look
after what they own, and don't care about what they don't own. They 
may be
on the PMC in name, but that simply isn't enough. It really isn't.


The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force
behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion
that Jakarta as a whole is also a community.
The question that we cannot know the answer to (without a time 
machine) is
whether the same result would have occurred if Jakarta had not 
existed. ie.
Is J-C a product of Jakarta, or a product of the need for shared Java 
code.
You believe its the former, I wasn't around so can't really comment, 
however
I see no great reason why exactly the same J-C couldn't have occurred
without Jakarta.

Stephen



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 28, 2003, at 6:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :)  Talk about
over-regulation...
LOL  :-)  OK, so it is a bad analogy.  I don't believe that either 
Costin or
I live in the EU.
I don't either.  I live in Connecticut, USA.

I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to integrate 
proud countries with long individual histories, but it was confirmed 
the first time I had to schelp from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3 at 
Heathrow just so I could pick up the bus to Reading, which used to stop 
at all 4 terminals, but stopped going to terminal 4 because EU regs 
said the total trip was too long.  The whole thing is something like an 
hour. :/

You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a 
restaurant under EU regs.  They must keep them cold until being served. 
 Ug.


The PMC is supposed to be performing the active management of one or
more projects, not ensuring that other people are doing it.  The PMC
is not supposed to be a body of auditors.  I see your analogy as
describing self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC,
who operate a collective for the common good.

Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management
(i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.
As I've said, let's do it.  Get them on.  And then see which projects 
decide
to form their own PMC.  The issue I was commenting on is not to lose a 
sense
of community with those projects who choose to form their own PMC.
True.

geir

	--- Noel

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen McConnell]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a 
restaurant under EU regs.  They must keep them cold until being 
served.  Ug. 


I can help you out on this particular subject!
No shortage of soft cheese ready for a stated day of delivery where live.
Stephen.

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen McConnell]

Stephen McConnell wrote:



Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a 
restaurant under EU regs.  They must keep them cold until being 
served.  Ug. 


I can help you out on this particular subject!
No shortage of soft cheese ready for a stated day of delivery where live. 


s/where live/where I live

SJM



Stephen.

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: EU analogy [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen Colebourne]

  you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :)  Talk about
  over-regulation...
 
  LOL  :-)  OK, so it is a bad analogy.  I don't believe that either
  Costin or
  I live in the EU.

 I don't either.  I live in Connecticut, USA.

 I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to integrate
 proud countries with long individual histories, but it was confirmed
 the first time I had to schelp from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3 at
 Heathrow just so I could pick up the bus to Reading, which used to stop
 at all 4 terminals, but stopped going to terminal 4 because EU regs
 said the total trip was too long.  The whole thing is something like an
 hour. :/

I live in the UK, so can comment ;-) The thing that I spot about the EU is
that is is often used as a scapegoat. When individual countries (or often
the media) wants to shift blame it is convenient. This comes about because
citizens of each country identify more with their own country than with the
EU. (Note: I believe that the EU does a lot of good, but it'll never be my
country)

Perhaps the parallel is that a Struts 'citizen' identifies more with the
Struts 'country' than the Jakarta 'union'. Of course one key difference is
that we don't have the individual governments at the country/Struts level.

Stephen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: EU analogy [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Stephen McConnell]

Stephen Colebourne wrote:

you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :)  Talk about
over-regulation...
   

LOL  :-)  OK, so it is a bad analogy.  I don't believe that either
Costin or
I live in the EU.
 

I don't either.  I live in Connecticut, USA.

I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to integrate
proud countries with long individual histories, but it was confirmed
the first time I had to schelp from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3 at
Heathrow just so I could pick up the bus to Reading, which used to stop
at all 4 terminals, but stopped going to terminal 4 because EU regs
said the total trip was too long.  The whole thing is something like an
hour. :/
   

I live in the UK, so can comment ;-) The thing that I spot about the EU is
that is is often used as a scapegoat. When individual countries (or often
the media) wants to shift blame it is convenient. This comes about because
citizens of each country identify more with their own country than with the
EU. (Note: I believe that the EU does a lot of good, but it'll never be my
country)
Perhaps the parallel is that a Struts 'citizen' identifies more with the
Struts 'country' than the Jakarta 'union'. Of course one key difference is
that we don't have the individual governments at the country/Struts level.
+100

Stephen.

Stephen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: EU analogy [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Tetsuya Kitahata]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:45:18 +0100
Stephen McConnell wrote:

 Perhaps the parallel is that a Struts 'citizen' identifies more with the
 Struts 'country' than the Jakarta 'union'. Of course one key difference is
 that we don't have the individual governments at the country/Struts level.
 +100

Since i introduced EU analogy to this list a few days ago :),
I comment.

--

As the Name Apache and the lex causae would be highly related to
the United States, I was wondering what would fit to describe
Apache and Jakarta communities themselves, and have been casting
about in my mind for good words.

Well, there could be two styles of the OSS communities
-- American Style (United States) .. (1)
-- European Style (Union of Nations) ... (2)
What I could perceive from the participation to this community was
the latter style. So, I used EU analogy.

The keyword would be Identity. Yes, I know that we can rather
describe the history of the Apache/Jakarta better by using
United States styled analogy, however, the strong Identity
of the each communities in Apache realm can be described by EU
analogy better, i suspect.

Please do not use the analogy in order to dispute forever.
Please use it in order to strengthen the understandings of
the community and to achieve the improvement of the community.
(1) and (2) have their own good points. Piling up good points
would be one of the key factors which can keep the health
of the OSS communities.

I am not in the United states nor in Europe.

Thanks,

-- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

P.S. (1) --- related to right-side cerebral cortex in brain
 (2) --- related to right-side limbic system in brain


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Robert Leland]

-1

My knee jerk reaction to Proactively encourage TLP status is the same 
as I had to one of my conservative friend who set out to
convert a family of another religion to their true religion. That is 
repugnant to me, and so is Proactively encourage TLP status

If you want to make the information available in a well documented 
fashion on how to go TLP
then +1. For example I am happy where Struts is now, in Jakarta. If 
Martin  Ted want to
expend energy  making  it a TLP I won't -1 it but  would -0 it if that 
was a voting option.
For Jakarta Commons I would Strongly  -1,  to pull out major components 
like collections.
The Jakarta Commons works.  It is absolutely one of the most vibrant 
communities around.

As one of the growing number of new PMC members, I want to focus on 
IP/Licensing matters.
I understand that TLP changes what we take responsibility of for Jakarta 
PMC,
but to me it is just one more distraction I don't need right now. I'll 
take each project that wants to
go TLP case by case, its their right to do that, but hope that they 
think long and hard about it.

-Rob

Stephen Colebourne wrote:

There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour
of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd
place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
Background info:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
Stephen

PROPOSAL
The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top Level
Project (TLP) status.
It shall do this by
- drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings
- explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a
subproject's rights
- documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs
- produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP
- clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation
- proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists
- setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes
In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be those
of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, with
the exact list to be determined by the dev list.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Noel J. Bergman]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
 Noel J. Bergman wrote:

We see a couple of things differently.  For one, you don't seem to believe
that a community can be built by multiple collaborating PMCs.

I don't believe that the Apache vs Jakarta Commons analogy applies.  AFAICS,
Apache Commons was an idea created before it had a community.  A project
needs a community.  I feel that Apache Commons could be another hub, for
Commons projects.

 just glomming everyone [onto the PMC] wouldn't result in
 the best outcome as we want to make sure that people are
 explicitly signing up for project oversight, rather than
 being drafted to meet a quota.

I agree, but getting the active committers onto the PMC isn't a matter of
meeting a quota.  The PMC is supposed to be made up of the people actively
managing the project.   That is its raison d'etre.

  Personally, I don't feel that a 400+ person PMC overseeing dozens of
  codebases represents a truely functional solution, but we can give it
  a go.

 I can't see why not.  The point of oversight is to catch the cases
 where things aren't right (i.e. code comes into the CVS that
 shouldn't w/o incubation) rather than continuously report when
 things are going well.

A PMC is not just about oversight.  The PMC is supposed to provide the
active managment of the project.  Code review, voting in new Committers,
voting in new PMC members, voting on releases, etc.  I do not believe that
Stephen Colebourne is unique in his outlook, nor incorrect in his approach.

 I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
 additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC.

What I say presupposes that having a PMC consisting of 400+ people, with a
lot of different disjoint factions keeping up on any of dozens of projects
is a PMC in name only, and that asking everyone to watch everything under
such a PMC would be impractical.

 I would argue that it's no different - if you are providing
 oversight independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the
 same amount of work.

Not if people, like Stephen, decide that being responsible for active
project management means having to at least follow every project.  If you
tell me that doing that won't scale, I will agree.

That said, I'm willing to start with the mega-PMC.  I just don't expect it
to last.  I expect projects to start asking for promotion to TLP status.

 The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community
 versus Jakarta as a website.

What in particular makes Jakarta a community, as you see it?  This is not an
idle question.  If you look at the question from the perspective of my
expectations, and you accept that I really do want to help preserve the idea
of a Jakarta community, then understanding how to structure a community that
survives the creation of multiple new PMCs takes on some importance.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

[Henri Yandell]

Agreed on the -1 for the proposal's subject line, yet +1 to Stephen's
suggestions of preparing Wiki resources for Jakarta sub-projects that want
to move to TLP-ness.

I do plan to proactively encourage TLP status for Commons, but as a
Commons committer. As a Taglibs committer I'm happy where it is. Etc.

Hen

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Robert Leland wrote:

 -1

 My knee jerk reaction to Proactively encourage TLP status is the same
 as I had to one of my conservative friend who set out to
 convert a family of another religion to their true religion. That is
 repugnant to me, and so is Proactively encourage TLP status


 If you want to make the information available in a well documented
 fashion on how to go TLP
 then +1. For example I am happy where Struts is now, in Jakarta. If
 Martin  Ted want to
 expend energy  making  it a TLP I won't -1 it but  would -0 it if that
 was a voting option.
 For Jakarta Commons I would Strongly  -1,  to pull out major components
 like collections.
 The Jakarta Commons works.  It is absolutely one of the most vibrant
 communities around.

 As one of the growing number of new PMC members, I want to focus on
 IP/Licensing matters.
 I understand that TLP changes what we take responsibility of for Jakarta
 PMC,
 but to me it is just one more distraction I don't need right now. I'll
 take each project that wants to
 go TLP case by case, its their right to do that, but hope that they
 think long and hard about it.

 -Rob

 Stephen Colebourne wrote:

 There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the
 sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in
 the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the
 consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour
 of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd
 place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
 
 Background info:
 http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
 
 Stephen
 
 PROPOSAL
 The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top Level
 Project (TLP) status.
 
 It shall do this by
 - drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings
 - explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a
 subproject's rights
 - documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs
 - produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP
 - clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation
 - proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists
 - setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes
 
 In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be those
 of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, with
 the exact list to be determined by the dev list.
 
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
 
 



 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]