Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
On 4 Dec 2002, David Crossley wrote: > Giacomo Pati wrote: > > David Crossley wrote: > > > > > How would you define 'active committer'? > > By CVS commit rates? > > By RTs? > > By mail posts/replies? > > > > ATM I don't fall in none of these categories but still like to > > be in the PMC. > > Some time ago we used to have a committers list at cocoon/who.html > which was just one long list of all committers. Then cocoon-dev > decided to categorise that into three types of committer "active", > "in-active" and "emeritus". Yes, I remember. > Actually, i do not want to define "committer categories" when we > are talking about PMC membership. I want all committers to be > invited. This is the resolution that we have arrived at elsewhere > in this thread. The word "committer" itself is misleading for us CVS aware people ;) (a committer issues CVS commits). > > > So, we need to define very carefully what constitutes a PMC > > > member and how/when PMC members are considered to be retired. > > > We must get this whole PMC setup correct from the beginning. > > > > I have the impression you'd like to exclude volunteers if they > > don't have > > a measurable weight (which ever this might be)? Why so, or did I > > misunderstud your concerns by 'We must get this whole PMC setup > > correct from the beginning'? > > You did mis-understand my concerns. Actually, i do want to ensure > that no-one is ever excluded, either now or in the future. The > previous proposal to only have "active committers" on the PMC, > was what i was disputing. Ok. I see it this way. As soon a someone committs itself to the PMS it *is* an active committer, don't you? > If we do not clearly define what constitutes PMC membership, then > we risk confusion later. Yes, sure. Being part of the PMC is a 'committment' :) Giacomo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
Giacomo Pati wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > How would you define 'active committer'? > By CVS commit rates? > By RTs? > By mail posts/replies? > > ATM I don't fall in none of these categories but still like to > be in the PMC. Some time ago we used to have a committers list at cocoon/who.html which was just one long list of all committers. Then cocoon-dev decided to categorise that into three types of committer "active", "in-active" and "emeritus". Actually, i do not want to define "committer categories" when we are talking about PMC membership. I want all committers to be invited. This is the resolution that we have arrived at elsewhere in this thread. > > So, we need to define very carefully what constitutes a PMC > > member and how/when PMC members are considered to be retired. > > We must get this whole PMC setup correct from the beginning. > > I have the impression you'd like to exclude volunteers if they > don't have > a measurable weight (which ever this might be)? Why so, or did I > misunderstud your concerns by 'We must get this whole PMC setup > correct from the beginning'? You did mis-understand my concerns. Actually, i do want to ensure that no-one is ever excluded, either now or in the future. The previous proposal to only have "active committers" on the PMC, was what i was disputing. If we do not clearly define what constitutes PMC membership, then we risk confusion later. --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > ... and invite all people explicitely. People who have lost interest in > > Cocoon won't answer the invitation then. > > I like this. > > I also agree with David that 'active committer' is not exactly easy to > define (also, that's right, from that standard I'm not that 'active' > code-wise) > > So, what about doing this: > > 1) I write email to everyone listed there (and will copy this mail list) > > 2) they have 72 hours to reply to that email indicating their interest > in partecipating (replying privately to me or publicly as they wish) > > 3) at the end, I'll post here the list of people that replied and > we'll include them in the proposal. > > [if they take longer to reply, we'll add them anyway, we don't need to > be that strict] > > NOTE: the message will contain a description of what does it mean to be > part of a PMC. > > What do you think? +1 Giacomo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Steven Noels wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > > Earlier in this thread i alerted the list to what i see > > as a major flaw. I think that the answer is simple: > > The initial PMC is formed from "all committers" - the > > whole list at xml-cocoon2/who.xml no matter what their > > status. They can take themselves off the PMC if they > > wish. No distinction is the best way. > > To be really correct, I assume we need use the avail list: > > bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xml-cocoon2 > avail| > > twl,stefano,balld,ricardo,rubys,ben,zvia,giacomo,gears,bmclaugh, > bloritsch,rossb,jeremy,greenrd,dims,ssahuc,prussell,cziegeler,donaldp, > mman,sylvain,vgritsenko,haul,morrijr,crossley,ovidiu,tcurdt,gianugo, > froehlich,huber,dirkx,butlermh,nicolaken,ivelin,kpiroumian,shannon, > proyal,stephan,coliver,crafterm,acoliver,stevenn,bdelacretaz > > |xml-cocoon,xml-cocoon2,xml-cocoon2-apps,xml-site,xml-commons > > ... and invite all people explicitely. People who have lost interest in > Cocoon won't answer the invitation then. IMHO this is a more suitable list than the who.xml file. Giacomo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
On 28 Nov 2002, David Crossley wrote: > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > Things to be decided: > > > > 1) the PMC chair. so far I'm the only person who volunteered. I'd be > > happy to accept that job. (hey, that would turn me into a vice-president > > of the foundation, wow :-) > > +1 from me for Stefano to be chair, because he is deserving > and it is appropriate. > > > - o - > > > > 2) the list of PMC members. > > > > My intention is to have a large PMC. Every active cocoon committer will > > have the chance to be in that PMC without requiring an election. > > The last time i heard, the intention was to start the > Cocoon PMC with *all* Cocoon committers. Why the sudden > change to "active committers" only? > > If we follow that route, then Stefano, you would not be on the > PMC, because by the definition of CVS xml-cocoon/xdocs/who.xml > and the history at > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-cvs&r=4&s=stefano&q=b > you actually belong in the "Inactive Committers" section > and are close to being "Emeritus". You are not the only > one in that situation. How would you define 'active committer'? By CVS commit rates? By RTs? By mail posts/replies? ATM I don't fall in none of these categories but still like to be in the PMC. > So, we need to define very carefully what constitutes a PMC > member and how/when PMC members are considered to be retired. > We must get this whole PMC setup correct from the beginning. I have the impression you'd like to exclude volunteers if they don't have a measurable weight (which ever this might be)? Why so, or did I misunderstud your concerns by 'We must get this whole PMC setup correct from the beginning'? > > At the same time, I'd ask you people to consider partecipation at the > > PMC as a serious thing and step out *NOW* if you don't feel like you > > should be there. > > > > A PMC is the Project Management Commitee. As for ASF bylaws, the PMC is > > legally responsible of the oversight of the project and reports directly > > to the ASF board via its chair. > > > > The PMC is responsible for *all* the codebases that it will host. Note > > that if the Cocoon PMC will host more codebases, *all* committers from > > all hosted codebases will be treated equal, this (and other ASF-wide > > communities) will hopefully avoid the jakarta-effect of internal > > fragmentation. > > > > This is the list of the current active committers > > > >Nicola Ken Barozzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Marcus Crafter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >David Crossley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Torsten Curdt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Bertrand Delacrétaz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Vadim Gritsenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Christian Haul ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Ivelin Ivanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Stefano Mazzocchi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Stephan Michels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >John Morrison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Steven Noels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Andrew Oliver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Giacomo Pati ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Konstantin Piroumian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Ovidiu Predescu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Jeremy Quinn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Gianugo Rabellino ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Peter Royal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Diana Shannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Davanum Srinivas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Sylvain Wallez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >Carsten Ziegeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > If you think you should be there but you are not listed, please speak up > > now. > > > > If you don't want to sit in the PMC, please speak up now. > > > > [matthew has been proposed and will be added to the list if accepted] > > > > - o - > > > > 3) the scope of the Cocoon PMC > > > > well, this is not easy, I'll try to come up with something soon and a > > vision to share. > > Just get started and we will all help to develop the vision. > We should start with building a simple list of dot-points. > Shall we do it on the Cocoon Wiki or on cocoon-dev ? I'd prefer cocoon-dev. Giacomo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Things to be decided: > > 1) the PMC chair. so far I'm the only person who volunteered. I'd be > happy to accept that job. (hey, that would turn me into a vice-president > of the foundation, wow :-) Congratulations ;) > > - o - > > 2) the list of PMC members. > > My intention is to have a large PMC. Every active cocoon committer will > have the chance to be in that PMC without requiring an election. +1 > At the same time, I'd ask you people to consider partecipation at the > PMC as a serious thing and step out *NOW* if you don't feel like you > should be there. > > A PMC is the Project Management Commitee. As for ASF bylaws, the PMC is > legally responsible of the oversight of the project and reports directly > to the ASF board via its chair. > > The PMC is responsible for *all* the codebases that it will host. Note > that if the Cocoon PMC will host more codebases, *all* committers from > all hosted codebases will be treated equal, this (and other ASF-wide > communities) will hopefully avoid the jakarta-effect of internal > fragmentation. > > This is the list of the current active committers > >Nicola Ken Barozzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Marcus Crafter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >David Crossley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Torsten Curdt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Bertrand Delacrétaz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Vadim Gritsenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Christian Haul ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Ivelin Ivanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Stefano Mazzocchi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Stephan Michels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >John Morrison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Steven Noels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Andrew Oliver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Giacomo Pati ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Konstantin Piroumian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Ovidiu Predescu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Jeremy Quinn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Gianugo Rabellino ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Peter Royal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Diana Shannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Davanum Srinivas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Sylvain Wallez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Carsten Ziegeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > If you think you should be there but you are not listed, please speak up > now. > > If you don't want to sit in the PMC, please speak up now. > > [matthew has been proposed and will be added to the list if accepted] +1 > > - o - > > 3) the scope of the Cocoon PMC > > well, this is not easy, I'll try to come up with something soon and a > vision to share. Try using examples like the http guildline or the xml charter I've mentioned in an earlier mail. Giacomo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
On Sunday, Dec 1, 2002, at 11:46 Europe/London, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: So, what about doing this: 1) I write email to everyone listed there (and will copy this mail list) 2) they have 72 hours to reply to that email indicating their interest in partecipating (replying privately to me or publicly as they wish) 3) at the end, I'll post here the list of people that replied and we'll include them in the proposal. I +1 this suggestion, primarily because I think many of us would like more information about what we are potentially letting ourselves in for. I also ask if is appropriate for any 'high-profile, non-committer *users*' to have representation on the board as well as developers? regards Jeremy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
+1 Carsten > -Original Message- > From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 12:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1 > > > Steven Noels wrote: > > David Crossley wrote: > > > >> Earlier in this thread i alerted the list to what i see > >> as a major flaw. I think that the answer is simple: > >> The initial PMC is formed from "all committers" - the > >> whole list at xml-cocoon2/who.xml no matter what their > >> status. They can take themselves off the PMC if they > >> wish. No distinction is the best way. > > > > > > To be really correct, I assume we need use the avail list: > > > > bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xml-cocoon2 > > avail| > > > > twl,stefano,balld,ricardo,rubys,ben,zvia,giacomo,gears,bmclaugh, > > bloritsch,rossb,jeremy,greenrd,dims,ssahuc,prussell,cziegeler,donaldp, > > mman,sylvain,vgritsenko,haul,morrijr,crossley,ovidiu,tcurdt,gianugo, > > froehlich,huber,dirkx,butlermh,nicolaken,ivelin,kpiroumian,shannon, > > proyal,stephan,coliver,crafterm,acoliver,stevenn,bdelacretaz > > > > |xml-cocoon,xml-cocoon2,xml-cocoon2-apps,xml-site,xml-commons > > > > ... and invite all people explicitely. People who have lost interest in > > Cocoon won't answer the invitation then. > > I like this. > > I also agree with David that 'active committer' is not exactly easy to > define (also, that's right, from that standard I'm not that 'active' > code-wise) > > So, what about doing this: > > 1) I write email to everyone listed there (and will copy this mail list) > > 2) they have 72 hours to reply to that email indicating their interest > in partecipating (replying privately to me or publicly as they wish) > > 3) at the end, I'll post here the list of people that replied and > we'll include them in the proposal. > > [if they take longer to reply, we'll add them anyway, we don't need to > be that strict] > > NOTE: the message will contain a description of what does it mean to be > part of a PMC. > > What do you think? > > -- > Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
Bernhard Huber wrote:
+1 from me,
i hope to get a clear understanding what is expected from being part
of PMC
bye bernhard
Me too. +1 !
Sylvain
So, what about doing this:
1) I write email to everyone listed there (and will copy this mail
list)
2) they have 72 hours to reply to that email indicating their
interest in partecipating (replying privately to me or publicly as
they wish)
3) at the end, I'll post here the list of people that replied and
we'll include them in the proposal.
[if they take longer to reply, we'll add them anyway, we don't need
to be that strict]
NOTE: the message will contain a description of what does it mean to
be part of a PMC.
What do you think?
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
+1 from me, i hope to get a clear understanding what is expected from being part of PMC bye bernhard So, what about doing this: 1) I write email to everyone listed there (and will copy this mail list) 2) they have 72 hours to reply to that email indicating their interest in partecipating (replying privately to me or publicly as they wish) 3) at the end, I'll post here the list of people that replied and we'll include them in the proposal. [if they take longer to reply, we'll add them anyway, we don't need to be that strict] NOTE: the message will contain a description of what does it mean to be part of a PMC. What do you think? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
Quoting Konstantin Piroumian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > > > > So, what about doing this: > > > > 1) I write email to everyone listed there (and will copy this mail > list) > > > > 2) they have 72 hours to reply to that email indicating their interest > > in partecipating (replying privately to me or publicly as they wish) > > > > 3) at the end, I'll post here the list of people that replied and > > we'll include them in the proposal. > > > > [if they take longer to reply, we'll add them anyway, we don't need to > > be that strict] > > > > NOTE: the message will contain a description of what does it mean to be > > part of a PMC. > > > > What do you think? > > +1 I like this. +1 sounds good -- Torsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... > > So, what about doing this: > > 1) I write email to everyone listed there (and will copy this mail list) > > 2) they have 72 hours to reply to that email indicating their interest > in partecipating (replying privately to me or publicly as they wish) > > 3) at the end, I'll post here the list of people that replied and > we'll include them in the proposal. > > [if they take longer to reply, we'll add them anyway, we don't need to > be that strict] > > NOTE: the message will contain a description of what does it mean to be > part of a PMC. > > What do you think? +1 I like this. Making all active committers PMC members without asking themselves was not a very good decision. I think that everyone would like to know what does it mean to be member of a PMC before becoming one. Regards, Konstantin Piroumian > > -- > Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: So, what about doing this: 1) I write email to everyone listed there (and will copy this mail list) 2) they have 72 hours to reply to that email indicating their interest in partecipating (replying privately to me or publicly as they wish) 3) at the end, I'll post here the list of people that replied and we'll include them in the proposal. [if they take longer to reply, we'll add them anyway, we don't need to be that strict] NOTE: the message will contain a description of what does it mean to be part of a PMC. What do you think? Makes a lot of sense, +1 from me! Ciao, -- Gianugo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
Steven Noels wrote: David Crossley wrote: Earlier in this thread i alerted the list to what i see as a major flaw. I think that the answer is simple: The initial PMC is formed from "all committers" - the whole list at xml-cocoon2/who.xml no matter what their status. They can take themselves off the PMC if they wish. No distinction is the best way. To be really correct, I assume we need use the avail list: bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xml-cocoon2 avail| twl,stefano,balld,ricardo,rubys,ben,zvia,giacomo,gears,bmclaugh, bloritsch,rossb,jeremy,greenrd,dims,ssahuc,prussell,cziegeler,donaldp, mman,sylvain,vgritsenko,haul,morrijr,crossley,ovidiu,tcurdt,gianugo, froehlich,huber,dirkx,butlermh,nicolaken,ivelin,kpiroumian,shannon, proyal,stephan,coliver,crafterm,acoliver,stevenn,bdelacretaz |xml-cocoon,xml-cocoon2,xml-cocoon2-apps,xml-site,xml-commons ... and invite all people explicitely. People who have lost interest in Cocoon won't answer the invitation then. I like this. I also agree with David that 'active committer' is not exactly easy to define (also, that's right, from that standard I'm not that 'active' code-wise) So, what about doing this: 1) I write email to everyone listed there (and will copy this mail list) 2) they have 72 hours to reply to that email indicating their interest in partecipating (replying privately to me or publicly as they wish) 3) at the end, I'll post here the list of people that replied and we'll include them in the proposal. [if they take longer to reply, we'll add them anyway, we don't need to be that strict] NOTE: the message will contain a description of what does it mean to be part of a PMC. What do you think? -- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
- Original Message -
From: "Sylvain Wallez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
> So the solution seems to me dead simple : let's keep this "active
> committer" criterion, and let committers motivated by being part of the
> PMC maintain their active committer status. And there should be no
> exception for Stefano, even if we all agree on his particular role in
> this project.
+1
>
> One commit every 3 months shouldn't be so hard to achieve for motivated
> people...
Even if this means updating your status as an active commiter or
better even - updating a document, adding a new one or commiting code.
Ivelin
>
> Sylvain
>
> --
> Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
> http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
> { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
David Crossley wrote:
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
I would just like to disagree with the statement in another email that
Stefano should not be elected because he is not an active commiter.
Please do not twist my words Ivelin. I did not say that
Stefano should not be elected.
I pointed out that the sudden (without any discussion) concept,
that PMC members be active committers, is flawed and needs
careful consideration.
What i was pointing out, is that Stefano (and others) will need
to be removed from the "active committers" list in who.xml
and then that breaks the notion that "PMC membership" equates
to being an active committer.
We cannot have one rule for some people and a different rule
for others.
The rule of "PMC of active commiters" is valid,
That is not yet decided. I, for one, am not yet happy with
what constitutes Cocoon PMC membership.
however Stefano is a vital exception.
The project has grown big enough to warrent a full-time
administrative management position.
I would consider it a mistake if Stefano gets his hands on
coding too often from here on.
I disagree. The PMC will need to be tweaking certain
documentation in CVS. It does not take much to remain
an active committer ... one change every three months.
His job of chair is to protect the interests of the project;
promote it in the industry;
work with evangelists (like Matthew) and participate in
strategic architectural discussions.
I agree, the job of chair has many aspects. However, to put
flaws in the rules will lead to trouble later on. When we
need to introduce new people to PMC membership and retire
old ones, we need a consistent definition of "PMC membership".
I agree with the fact that there are many kind of productions other than
code than can go into the CVS, even for PR people and the PMC chair,
which may be more concerned by community management and high-level
architecture.
So the solution seems to me dead simple : let's keep this "active
committer" criterion, and let committers motivated by being part of the
PMC maintain their active committer status. And there should be no
exception for Stefano, even if we all agree on his particular role in
this project.
One commit every 3 months shouldn't be so hard to achieve for motivated
people...
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
David Crossley wrote: Earlier in this thread i alerted the list to what i see as a major flaw. I think that the answer is simple: The initial PMC is formed from "all committers" - the whole list at xml-cocoon2/who.xml no matter what their status. They can take themselves off the PMC if they wish. No distinction is the best way. To be really correct, I assume we need use the avail list: bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xml-cocoon2 avail| twl,stefano,balld,ricardo,rubys,ben,zvia,giacomo,gears,bmclaugh, bloritsch,rossb,jeremy,greenrd,dims,ssahuc,prussell,cziegeler,donaldp, mman,sylvain,vgritsenko,haul,morrijr,crossley,ovidiu,tcurdt,gianugo, froehlich,huber,dirkx,butlermh,nicolaken,ivelin,kpiroumian,shannon, proyal,stephan,coliver,crafterm,acoliver,stevenn,bdelacretaz |xml-cocoon,xml-cocoon2,xml-cocoon2-apps,xml-site,xml-commons ... and invite all people explicitely. People who have lost interest in Cocoon won't answer the invitation then. -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > [...] > > When we > > need to introduce new people to PMC membership and retire > > old ones, we need a consistent definition of "PMC membership". > > Just my 2c, but IMHO anyone that partecipates actively on the list with > discussions, suggestion and social engineering is "active". > > Probably it's the "committer" part that is confusing, since it's more > about "committable", ie who has the right to commit. > > As for retirement and taking new ones, ATM I don't see a problem in > having them deemed inactive if they do not partecipate for some time, > having "partecipate" a quite wide meaning. > > For example, Ross Gardler has not really committed bif stuff since some > time now on Krysalis, but I honestly do consider him "active", since he > has been really helping with suggestions, tips, discussions and so on. I > would never retire someone like him :-) > > I'll leave the definition of the details to others though, these are > just my two pennies. All of us need to help to define the details. These formative stages of the PMC are vital. Earlier in this thread i alerted the list to what i see as a major flaw. I think that the answer is simple: The initial PMC is formed from "all committers" - the whole list at xml-cocoon2/who.xml no matter what their status. They can take themselves off the PMC if they wish. No distinction is the best way. --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
David Crossley wrote: [...] When we need to introduce new people to PMC membership and retire old ones, we need a consistent definition of "PMC membership". Just my 2c, but IMHO anyone that partecipates actively on the list with discussions, suggestion and social engineering is "active". Probably it's the "committer" part that is confusing, since it's more about "committable", ie who has the right to commit. As for retirement and taking new ones, ATM I don't see a problem in having them deemed inactive if they do not partecipate for some time, having "partecipate" a quite wide meaning. For example, Ross Gardler has not really committed bif stuff since some time now on Krysalis, but I honestly do consider him "active", since he has been really helping with suggestions, tips, discussions and so on. I would never retire someone like him :-) I'll leave the definition of the details to others though, these are just my two pennies. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
Ivelin Ivanov wrote: > I would just like to disagree with the statement in another email that > Stefano should not be elected because he is not an active commiter. Please do not twist my words Ivelin. I did not say that Stefano should not be elected. I pointed out that the sudden (without any discussion) concept, that PMC members be active committers, is flawed and needs careful consideration. What i was pointing out, is that Stefano (and others) will need to be removed from the "active committers" list in who.xml and then that breaks the notion that "PMC membership" equates to being an active committer. We cannot have one rule for some people and a different rule for others. > The rule of "PMC of active commiters" is valid, That is not yet decided. I, for one, am not yet happy with what constitutes Cocoon PMC membership. > however Stefano is a vital exception. > The project has grown big enough to warrent a full-time > administrative management position. > I would consider it a mistake if Stefano gets his hands on > coding too often from here on. I disagree. The PMC will need to be tweaking certain documentation in CVS. It does not take much to remain an active committer ... one change every three months. > His job of chair is to protect the interests of the project; > promote it in the industry; > work with evangelists (like Matthew) and participate in > strategic architectural discussions. I agree, the job of chair has many aspects. However, to put flaws in the rules will lead to trouble later on. When we need to introduce new people to PMC membership and retire old ones, we need a consistent definition of "PMC membership". --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
- Original Message - From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Apache Cocoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 12:57 PM Subject: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1 > Things to be decided: > > 1) the PMC chair. so far I'm the only person who volunteered. I'd be > happy to accept that job. (hey, that would turn me into a vice-president > of the foundation, wow :-) > > - o - > > 2) the list of PMC members. > > My intention is to have a large PMC. Every active cocoon committer will > have the chance to be in that PMC without requiring an election. > > At the same time, I'd ask you people to consider partecipation at the > PMC as a serious thing and step out *NOW* if you don't feel like you > should be there. I would just like to disagree with the statement in another email that Stefano should not be elected because he is not an active commiter. The rule of "PMC of active commiters" is valid, however Stefano is a vital exception. The project has grown big enough to warrent a full-time administrative management position. I would consider it a mistake if Stefano gets his hands on coding too often from here on. His job of chair is to protect the interests of the project; promote it in the industry; work with evangelists (like Matthew) and participate in strategic architectural discussions. Ivelin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
On Wednesday, Nov 27, 2002, at 18:57 Europe/London, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Things to be decided: 1) the PMC chair. so far I'm the only person who volunteered. I'd be happy to accept that job. (hey, that would turn me into a vice-president of the foundation, wow :-) I see little sense in anyone else being chair. You are the one who seems to keep the community aspect most in mind . - o - 2) the list of PMC members. My intention is to have a large PMC. Every active cocoon committer will have the chance to be in that PMC without requiring an election. At the same time, I'd ask you people to consider partecipation at the PMC as a serious thing and step out *NOW* if you don't feel like you should be there. Have you any more information as to what the role of PMC members is to be? What are the responsibilities? A PMC is the Project Management Commitee. As for ASF bylaws, the PMC is legally responsible of the oversight of the project and reports directly to the ASF board via its chair. The PMC is responsible for *all* the codebases that it will host. Note that if the Cocoon PMC will host more codebases, *all* committers from all hosted codebases will be treated equal, this (and other ASF-wide communities) will hopefully avoid the jakarta-effect of internal fragmentation. this sounds good This is the list of the current active committers Thanks for adding me. regards Jeremy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Things to be decided: > > 1) the PMC chair. so far I'm the only person who volunteered. I'd be > happy to accept that job. (hey, that would turn me into a vice-president > of the foundation, wow :-) +1 from me for Stefano to be chair, because he is deserving and it is appropriate. > - o - > > 2) the list of PMC members. > > My intention is to have a large PMC. Every active cocoon committer will > have the chance to be in that PMC without requiring an election. The last time i heard, the intention was to start the Cocoon PMC with *all* Cocoon committers. Why the sudden change to "active committers" only? If we follow that route, then Stefano, you would not be on the PMC, because by the definition of CVS xml-cocoon/xdocs/who.xml and the history at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-cvs&r=4&s=stefano&q=b you actually belong in the "Inactive Committers" section and are close to being "Emeritus". You are not the only one in that situation. So, we need to define very carefully what constitutes a PMC member and how/when PMC members are considered to be retired. We must get this whole PMC setup correct from the beginning. > At the same time, I'd ask you people to consider partecipation at the > PMC as a serious thing and step out *NOW* if you don't feel like you > should be there. > > A PMC is the Project Management Commitee. As for ASF bylaws, the PMC is > legally responsible of the oversight of the project and reports directly > to the ASF board via its chair. > > The PMC is responsible for *all* the codebases that it will host. Note > that if the Cocoon PMC will host more codebases, *all* committers from > all hosted codebases will be treated equal, this (and other ASF-wide > communities) will hopefully avoid the jakarta-effect of internal > fragmentation. > > This is the list of the current active committers > >Nicola Ken Barozzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Marcus Crafter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >David Crossley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Torsten Curdt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Bertrand Delacrétaz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Vadim Gritsenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Christian Haul ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Ivelin Ivanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Stefano Mazzocchi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Stephan Michels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >John Morrison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Steven Noels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Andrew Oliver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Giacomo Pati ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Konstantin Piroumian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Ovidiu Predescu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Jeremy Quinn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Gianugo Rabellino ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Peter Royal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Diana Shannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Davanum Srinivas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Sylvain Wallez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Carsten Ziegeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > If you think you should be there but you are not listed, please speak up > now. > > If you don't want to sit in the PMC, please speak up now. > > [matthew has been proposed and will be added to the list if accepted] > > - o - > > 3) the scope of the Cocoon PMC > > well, this is not easy, I'll try to come up with something soon and a > vision to share. Just get started and we will all help to develop the vision. We should start with building a simple list of dot-points. Shall we do it on the Cocoon Wiki or on cocoon-dev ? --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
hi, If you think you should be there but you are not listed, please speak up now. yup, i'd like to join, just updated who.xml bye bernhard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
