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

2004-01-14 Thread 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)

2004-01-14 Thread 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)

2004-01-14 Thread 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)

2004-01-14 Thread 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)

2004-01-14 Thread 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)

2004-01-14 Thread 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)

2004-01-14 Thread 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)

2004-01-14 Thread 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)

2004-01-14 Thread 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]