Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
- 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
- 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
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
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
+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]
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] ORO 2.0.8 maintenance release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El domingo, 28 dici, 2003, a las 23:21 Europe/Madrid, Daniel F. Savarese escribió: The resolution to approve a 2.0.8 maintenance release of jakarta-oro has passed with 4 binding +1 votes from Jakarta PMC members and no -1 votes. Many thanks to all who voted. I will now proceed to package and upload a release for distribution, update appropriate Web pages, and email an announcement after 24 hours to give sufficient time for mirrors to pick up the release. A summary of the voting results follows: Binding +1 Votes: Geir Magnusson Jr geir.4quarters.com Craig McClanahan cragmcc.apache.org Scott Sanders scott.dotnot.org Daniel Savaresedfs.savarese.org My (binding) vote was emitted on 24, between Daniel's and Scott's. Now I see it went just to general pmc, because I was following on the informative re-broadcast, so this is the reason why it has not been counted. I think (I seem to recall it used to be done) that VOTEs should specify where they should happen. No problem for this one, as it does not change the result at all. Non-Binding +1 Votes: Gary Gregory ggregory.seagullsw.com (PMC membership pending paperwork) Mark F. Murphy markm.tyrell.com (oro user and code contributor) Takashi Okamototoraneko.kun.ne.jp (oro user and code contributor) Regards, Santiago -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin) iD8DBQE/8NPRZAeG2a2/nhoRAhTjAJsF74t3Phiq7GXpaXwcr7sww4XVOACeOWd2 ztOTe/qYHKhFVsvQ/7YqYgw= =WXW/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
