But those projects won't have 3
active committers. Watchdog and ECS are good examples.
IMO The Watchdog debate, that resulted in you and I accepting a monitoring
role, is a good outcome.
Basically Jakarta is a single ASF project, the PMC is responsible for
everything, and the notion of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], robert burr
ell donkin writes:
that's why i would prefer something more positive. i'd prefer something
about mandating the pmc to take action to ensure appropriate
supervision when the number of active committers on the pmc falls below
three. this could mean
Henri Yandell wrote:
...
However, the aim for this modification is to bring it in line with reality
and not future plans and we've never had a PMC member who was not a
committer. Every (loose) description I've seen of a PMC describes it as
the active committers to a project.
Yup.
So I'd like to
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
...
However, the aim for this modification is to bring it in line with
reality
and not future plans and we've never had a PMC member who was not a
committer. Every (loose) description I've seen of a PMC describes it as
the active committers to a
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Sam Ruby wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
...
However, the aim for this modification is to bring it in line with
reality
and not future plans and we've never had a PMC member who was not a
committer. Every (loose) description I've seen of
Hi,
It does have 3 committers on the PMC. Whether they are active or not,
I'm
unsure, might only be 2. It's planned to merge with Regexp and maybe
into
Commons over time though, so there's definitely a tendency towards
larger
oversight.
Something like ECS is more likely to be a problem I think.
Henri Yandell wrote:
What about jakarta-oro?
It does have 3 committers on the PMC. Whether they are active or not, I'm
unsure, might only be 2. It's planned to merge with Regexp and maybe into
Commons over time though, so there's definitely a tendency towards larger
oversight.
On 6 Aug 2004, at 18:23, Sam Ruby wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
What about jakarta-oro?
It does have 3 committers on the PMC. Whether they are active or not,
I'm
unsure, might only be 2. It's planned to merge with Regexp and maybe
into
Commons over time though, so there's definitely a tendency
robert burrell donkin wrote:
What about jakarta-oro?
this illustrates well the point i was trying to make before.
ORO is actually better supervised than several other sub-project i could
mention and yet because it doesn't have three active committers who are
PMC members, the proposed bylaws say
Yep, I was wrong with '3 active committers', I've dropped the threeness
part from the proposed changes.
I'll plan to bring it up again at a later date under an oversight topic.
Hen
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Sam Ruby wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
What about jakarta-oro?
this
I'd like to go ahead and update the PMC bylaws to reflect current reality:
http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html
(red is add, strikethrough is remove)
Before I call a vote on it, I'd like to invite anyone to suggest other
essential information that should be in there, or major
looks good :)
a few minor points:
1. it'd be tidy to specify the voting process required to change the
bylaws
2. it would probably be a good idea to specify some basic, default
rules about decision taking on the pmc (votes, quorums, casting vote?)
in the bylaws.
3. it'd probably be a good
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote:
looks good :)
a few minor points:
1. it'd be tidy to specify the voting process required to change the
bylaws
Done.
2. it would probably be a good idea to specify some basic, default
rules about decision taking on the pmc (votes,
I'm not sure I follow this statement:
Non-binary voting currently relies on consensus; such as voting in a new
chairman.
Can one veto a new chairman? Because -1 == veto seems to be the
conventional meaning of consensus around here.
Also, we may want to reference or crib bits of
Also, do we need to limit PMC membership to committers as a matter of
policy? I suggest simply Individuals are nominated for the PMC... or
something like that.
- Rod
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
I'm not sure I follow this statement:
Non-binary voting currently relies on
Interestingly, the ASF bylaws seem to imply that PMCs are only for members
and officers of the ASF. I may be mis-interpreting:
Project Management Committees consisting of at least one officer of the
corporation, who shall be designated chairman of such committee, and may
include one or more
Ah, good point. I chose a bad word :)
Will change 'consensus' to 'community agreement'. Namely, there is no hard
and fast rule, we just work to an agreement.
I should also change voting in a new chairman to voting on the
recommendation of a chair to the board.
I'll also look at decisions.html
Okay, think I've responded to your points. Let me know if I've failed.
Going to lay on the emphasis again that this is aimed to represent the
current situation, rather than design a new one. Thus we have two types of
majority approval in existence, 51% success and 75% success. Mentioning as
I'm
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote:
3. it'd probably be a good idea to refer to another document containing
voting guidelines which could be changed more frequently without board
approval.
I can't see anything suggesting we need
Interestingly, the ASF bylaws seem to imply that PMCs are only
for members and officers of the ASF. I may be mis-interpreting:
Project Management Committees consisting of at least one officer of the
corporation, who shall be designated chairman of such committee, and may
include one or more
20 matches
Mail list logo
