Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-19 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 19, 2003, at 12:21 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Henri Yandell wrote:

If all the PMC's share the same website, who is responsible
for the website as a global concept. For example, the need
to do mirrors.

If a Jakarta-Site PMC exists, all other PMCs [jakarta sub-project 
based]
are accepting the Jakarta Site PMC's oversight over their websites.
How do you think the Jakarta site works already?  The site2 module is 
just
the core Jakarta site.  All of the projects already have their own 
sites
in their own CVS, which are then checked out under the
/www/jakarta.apache.org/$project.  Nothing would have to change, 
unless a
project *wanted* a new domain, from what I can see.  Am I missing your
point?  I'm just not seeing the problem.
The Jakarta PMC, as the group responsible for oversight of Jakarta, is 
responsible also for all content on the website.

And I couldn't imagine projects leaving jakarta not wanting their own 
website.

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: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread hlship
The more I see of this discussion, the more convinced I am that the sub-projects of 
Jakarta should be run like mini-TLPs. We want to leverage the marketing power of the 
Jakarta brand, the experience of the other Jakarta developers, and some infrastructure 
support (web page, CVS, mailing lists, wiki).

However, this idea that the PMC should manage individual projects as diverse as 
Tapestry, Lucene, ORO and BCEL is, to me, a losing proposition. I can't even envision 
what it means to manage these projects.  To me, management is primarily about 
allocating scarce resources. For all these projects, the scarce resource is developer 
time and effort, and that is administered by each developer individually.

From my point of view, the Jakarta PMC should be encouraging the individual projects 
to operate in a professional fashion, to provide advice when asked, to keep tabs on 
projects sufficiently to verify that they are operating as a healthy meritocracy ... 
and that's about it.

I think Jakarta will choose its own direction, as new projects come into existence and 
old ones either move on, or fade out (ECS, anybody?).

Obviously, something is afoot ... otherwise, why are healthy projects moving out of 
Jakarta, up to the top level (Ant, Maven and now logging)? Is that the destiny of 
Jakarta, to be a second-level incubator for projects on the way to TLP status?  If so 
... embrace that.

--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry:Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry/

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



Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy
If the aim of the PMC is to house a vast majority of committers, and if the role of a PMC member is 
simply to follow some guidelines and regulate development, I don't see the distinction between a PMC 
member and a committer. If the PMC membership requires legal and governing skills, I am not sure the 
PMC can attain vast majority. Is there a legal binding between a member and Jakarta/Apache that does 
not exist between a committer and Apache?

I am certainly willing (and want) to share some responsibilities to help grow Jakarta but I want to 
be clear on the responsibilities I will be taking on as a member and if I will be eligible.

Thanks,
Harish
Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:


First off, as a commiter your entitled to be proposed for membership of
the

PMC, which I'd be happy to do.


Thanks for the offer but I don't know if I would qualify for one.
The description on the website is pretty broad.


Harish, as I see it, part of the problem comes from a misunderstanding about
the nature of the PMC.  The term management has been misunderstood in the
context of an ASF Project.
The intended purpose for the PMC is that the PMC members are the core group
making all decisions related to an ASF Project.  That includes voting on
code changes, voting on new Committers, voting on new PMC members.  Not all
Committers may be on the PMC, but the majority should be -- and those who
aren't do not have binding votes (see explanation below).  I recently did a
quick survey of some projects:
  Project   # PMC# Committers %
  HTTP Server:43 59 73%
  APR 29 43 67%
  Cocoon  31 67 46%
  Jakarta 42+   352 12%
Not all Committers are still active, so the ratio of PMC to active
Committers is higher, but the difference is still pretty clear.  The Jakarta
PMC, using the current structure, is missing 100s of members.
Now here is where the problem comes in.  Although every PMC is free to
establish its normal rules, the legal system also plays a part.  The
structure of the ASF exists to protect us.  In order to be protected,
decision makers must be PMC members.  Decisions include code changes.
The discussions taking place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] regarding how to fix
the situation take different directions, but I think that everyone agrees
that the vast majority of Jakarta Committers must be on a responsible PMC.
The question, as I see it, is really about *how* we're going to organize it,
not *if*.
	--- Noel

-
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: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Henri Yandell


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The more I see of this discussion, the more convinced I am that the
 sub-projects of Jakarta should be run like mini-TLPs. We want to
 leverage the marketing power of the Jakarta brand, the experience of the
 other Jakarta developers, and some infrastructure support (web page,
 CVS, mailing lists, wiki).

I would have embraced that idea a year ago, but when discussed it was said
to not be an option to have a hierarchy of PMCs below the Jakarta PMC of 7
members. Now that Jakarta is breaking up, I believe it should continue the
process so that Jakarta can discover a new role.

Either it would roll back to the old style as Tomcat + friends, or would
become the Java-Foundry for Apache [a la Sourceforge], or would become
Jakarta Commons, or both of the latter two. Dunno what other visions there
might be out there for Jakarta-2004.

 However, this idea that the PMC should manage individual projects as
 diverse as Tapestry, Lucene, ORO and BCEL is, to me, a losing
 proposition. I can't even envision what it means to manage these
 projects.  To me, management is primarily about allocating scarce
 resources. For all these projects, the scarce resource is developer time
 and effort, and that is administered by each developer individually.

I think it's less about allocating, as being aware of all issues.
Alexandria has been dormant/dead for ages, and someone should have been
trying to archive it for ages.

The Jakarta Commons charter is no longer true, especially with Incubator
now in existence and someone ought to be worried about that.

The Jakarta website is quite a mess and the mirrors are only now being
happily handled [though a lot of places aren't using the # named anchors,
which seems to irritate users]. Someone should be responsible to the board
for that.

 From my point of view, the Jakarta PMC should be encouraging the
 individual projects to operate in a professional fashion, to provide
 advice when asked, to keep tabs on projects sufficiently to verify that
 they are operating as a healthy meritocracy ... and that's about it.

 I think Jakarta will choose its own direction, as new projects come into
 existence and old ones either move on, or fade out (ECS, anybody?).

God no. I still happily use ECS. Very nice separation of view when I've
written a single servlet prototype to do some kind of feature.

Jakarta does need to move in its own direction though, and I think the
first step in this is for the community to decide what 'Jakarta' means
now/in the future.

 Obviously, something is afoot ... otherwise, why are healthy projects
 moving out of Jakarta, up to the top level (Ant, Maven and now logging)?
 Is that the destiny of Jakarta, to be a second-level incubator for
 projects on the way to TLP status?  If so ... embrace that.

As far as I know, there is much ASF community resistance to Jakarta
continuing to be an Incubator. We're no longer anywhere near server-side
Java at ASF. Basically we are now:  What's left of the old server-side
Java project at ASF, but a bit confused about it all.

Hen


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



RE: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Noel J. Bergman
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:

 The more I see of this discussion, the more convinced I am that
 the sub-projects of Jakarta should be run like mini-TLPs.
 We want to leverage the marketing power of the Jakarta brand,
 the experience of the other Jakarta developers, and some
 infrastructure support (web page, CVS, mailing lists, wiki).

I agree.  That has been my preferred approach to date.  I concur with many
of the reasons you gave for not having a 300 person PMC overseeing dozens of
otherwise unrelated projects.

 To me, management is primarily about allocating scarce resources.

As I said, this is not the kind of management meant for a PMC.

--- Noel


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



Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Henri Yandell


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:

 If the aim of the PMC is to house a vast majority of committers, and if
 the role of a PMC member is simply to follow some guidelines and
 regulate development, I don't see the distinction between a PMC member
 and a committer. If the PMC membership requires legal and governing
 skills, I am not sure the PMC can attain vast majority. Is there a legal
 binding between a member and Jakarta/Apache that does not exist between
 a committer and Apache?

Yep. There is very little legal binding between a committer and Apache,
apart from the legal fact that the committer is donating code to Apache.

An Apache Member is a part of the Apache organisation, while a PMC member
is recognised by the Apache organisation as being responsible for that
TLP. There's no need for them to be an Apache Member however.

[IANAL etc, this is how I see it from descriptions people have given]

 I am certainly willing (and want) to share some responsibilities to help
 grow Jakarta but I want to be clear on the responsibilities I will be
 taking on as a member and if I will be eligible.

By being an active committer, you are eligible. As for what
responsibilities are, attempts to define the role of a PMC member have not
gone well so far but will hopefully get there.


Hen


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



Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy


Henri Yandell wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:


If the aim of the PMC is to house a vast majority of committers, and if
the role of a PMC member is simply to follow some guidelines and
regulate development, I don't see the distinction between a PMC member
and a committer. If the PMC membership requires legal and governing
skills, I am not sure the PMC can attain vast majority. Is there a legal
binding between a member and Jakarta/Apache that does not exist between
a committer and Apache?


Yep. There is very little legal binding between a committer and Apache,
apart from the legal fact that the committer is donating code to Apache.
I am sorry if I am being naive, but can it not be enforced that a committer should also be bound the 
way a member is? That way the responsibilities are borne by every committer and we could have a very 
small team of members for governance.

An Apache Member is a part of the Apache organisation, while a PMC member
is recognised by the Apache organisation as being responsible for that
TLP. There's no need for them to be an Apache Member however.
[IANAL etc, this is how I see it from descriptions people have given]


I am certainly willing (and want) to share some responsibilities to help
grow Jakarta but I want to be clear on the responsibilities I will be
taking on as a member and if I will be eligible.


By being an active committer, you are eligible. As for what
responsibilities are, attempts to define the role of a PMC member have not
gone well so far but will hopefully get there.
I am sorry, I meant to say if I would qualify for the responsibilities.



Hen

-
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: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Noel J. Bergman
Henri Yandell wrote:

 I would have embraced that idea a year ago, but when discussed it was said
 to not be an option to have a hierarchy of PMCs below the Jakarta PMC of 7
 members.

There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There is
absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:

  Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
  Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
  Struts PMC: struts and related code
  Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
  Tapestry PMC: ...
  ...

All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.

No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's
legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this confirmed
already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution to the
Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.

--- Noel


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



RE: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Noel J. Bergman
 I don't see the distinction between a PMC member and a committer.

grin You catch on quickly.  :-)  The difference is that a PMC member, as
a normative statement, has a binding vote on the project.  By allowing
someone to become a Committer, you allow direct contribution to the
codebase, but the PMC is overseeing it.  The Committer contributes, but does
not have a say.  So there is a natural progression from:

  Contributor (patches) - Committer (authorized access) - PMC member

 If the PMC membership requires legal and governing skills, I am
 not sure the PMC can attain vast majority.

It doesn't.  300+ Committers are already doing most of what they need to do,
without the benefit of being on a PMC.

 Is there a legal binding between a [PMC] member and Jakarta/Apache
 that does not exist between a committer and Apache?

Please see:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.orgmsgNo=2711.

--- Noel


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



Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Henri Yandell


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:



 Henri Yandell wrote:

 
  On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
 
 
 If the aim of the PMC is to house a vast majority of committers, and if
 the role of a PMC member is simply to follow some guidelines and
 regulate development, I don't see the distinction between a PMC member
 and a committer. If the PMC membership requires legal and governing
 skills, I am not sure the PMC can attain vast majority. Is there a legal
 binding between a member and Jakarta/Apache that does not exist between
 a committer and Apache?
 
 
  Yep. There is very little legal binding between a committer and Apache,
  apart from the legal fact that the committer is donating code to Apache.

 I am sorry if I am being naive, but can it not be enforced that a
 committer should also be bound the way a member is? That way the
 responsibilities are borne by every committer and we could have a very
 small team of members for governance.

Depends what you mean by member here. ASF Member-ness is special and
something legal to do with the organisation. PMC member-ness, is meant to
apply to all active committers apparantly. Other Apache TLPs function in
this way [some, not all], and apparantly this is the way the PMC is
expected to behave. Basically any somewhat active, trusted committer
should be on the PMC.

  By being an active committer, you are eligible. As for what
  responsibilities are, attempts to define the role of a PMC member have not
  gone well so far but will hopefully get there.

 I am sorry, I meant to say if I would qualify for the responsibilities.

Your call. As long as you're active, you pass muster to be on the PMC.
Whether you want to be is up to you and how happy you are joining
something that is not too sure about responsibilities etc.

I've seen nothing that says you can't quit at any time though, so I think
there's very little risk involved in jumping in.

Hen


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



RE: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Henri Yandell


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

 Henri Yandell wrote:

  I would have embraced that idea a year ago, but when discussed it was said
  to not be an option to have a hierarchy of PMCs below the Jakarta PMC of 7
  members.

 There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There is
 absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:

   Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
   Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
   Struts PMC: struts and related code
   Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
   Tapestry PMC: ...
   ...

 All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.

 No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's
 legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this confirmed
 already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution to the
 Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.

Gotya. Had been wondering why you kept pushing the multi-PMC approach.

I'm +0 to this and would still be worried about what 'Jakarta' meant now.
Hopefully if this happened, ant, maven, avalon, cocoon, etc would be able
to join Jakarta again. Same for xerces-J, xalan-J etc.

So these would basically be TLPs without the domain name?

Hen


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



Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Mark R. Diggory


Henri Yandell wrote:

Obviously, something is afoot ... otherwise, why are healthy projects
moving out of Jakarta, up to the top level (Ant, Maven and now logging)?
Is that the destiny of Jakarta, to be a second-level incubator for
projects on the way to TLP status?  If so ... embrace that.


As far as I know, there is much ASF community resistance to Jakarta
continuing to be an Incubator. We're no longer anywhere near server-side
Java at ASF. Basically we are now:  What's left of the old server-side
Java project at ASF, but a bit confused about it all.
Hen

Your right, the real question is  What is Jakarta?

Is it a java component incubator or is it a umbrella for server side 
java?

The idea of server side java is a weak one in my book. There is no 
such thing as server side java and client side java, its all the 
same JVM! There are a few components that act as servers (tomcat, james, 
etc). There are components that are developed with the intention of 
running on those services (Struts, JSTL, Velocity ...) And there are 
java components that are totally agnostic to this artificial boundary of 
client/server side java (most of jakarta commons). There are 
components that were designed to be intentional gui clients (JMeter 
etc). But what they all have in common is java.

Jakarta is a java component incubator!

I suspect the components that have left Jakarta have done so because 
they've felt limited by its past mandate as server side java or 
things that run on tomcat...

Either way, language based delineations in top level apache project 
boundaries are logical given that its often the case that a subproject 
is usually developed with one language in mind (java, perl, c, php, 
xml). Yes there are overlaps and exceptions to this case (Xerces and 
Xalan for instance), but they are usually consolidated under an 
appropriate umbrella of commonality (in this case XML). I'm not 
convinced that a language agnostic top level incubator is a bad or 
good thing, I just think it may not be a very popular thing because of 
these umbrellas of commonality that arise based on language and 
implementation. In context to the parent projects umbrella is where the 
most appropriate creativity and invention arise, leading to the most 
successful subprojects.

-Mark

--
Mark Diggory
Software Developer
Harvard MIT Data Center
http://osprey.hmdc.harvard.edu
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Brian McCallister
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 14:03, Henri Yandell wrote:
 Either it would roll back to the old style as Tomcat + friends, or would
 become the Java-Foundry for Apache [a la Sourceforge], or would become
 Jakarta Commons, or both of the latter two. Dunno what other visions there
 might be out there for Jakarta-2004.

FWIW -- Jakarta has a lot of mindshare on web-application stuff and that
is not to be thrown away. I am *not* on the PMC for Jakarta (and
shouldn't be) so have no business interjecting thoughts on what to do,
but... (I should listen to myself more, oh well, too late now) if a
group home for webapp tools exists in Apache, it should be Jakarta.
Jakarta should not (as I recently replied to you in DB) be the default
home for everything without some other logical home.

Maybe we need sandbox.apache.org for logical groupings to coagulate in,
but that is a decision for people at a higher pay grade than myself ;-)

Just my off-the-cuff opinions =)

-Brian



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



Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 18, 2003, at 2:24 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Henri Yandell wrote:

I would have embraced that idea a year ago, but when discussed it was 
said
to not be an option to have a hierarchy of PMCs below the Jakarta PMC 
of 7
members.
There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There 
is
absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:

  Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
  Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
  Struts PMC: struts and related code
  Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
  Tapestry PMC: ...
  ...
All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.

No one should feel that there is any relationship between the 
Foundation's
legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this confirmed
already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution 
to the
Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.
This is nothing I would encourage.  There's really no question that 
it's legal.  But it does then make Jakarta a website, rather than a 
community, IMO.  I'd rather see the 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: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 18, 2003, at 2:35 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:



On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Henri Yandell wrote:

I would have embraced that idea a year ago, but when discussed it 
was said
to not be an option to have a hierarchy of PMCs below the Jakarta 
PMC of 7
members.
There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There 
is
absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:

  Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
  Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
  Struts PMC: struts and related code
  Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
  Tapestry PMC: ...
  ...
All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.

No one should feel that there is any relationship between the 
Foundation's
legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this confirmed
already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution 
to the
Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.
Gotya. Had been wondering why you kept pushing the multi-PMC approach.
Clue me in because I don't get it.

I'm +0 to this and would still be worried about what 'Jakarta' meant 
now.
Hopefully if this happened, ant, maven, avalon, cocoon, etc would be 
able
to join Jakarta again. Same for xerces-J, xalan-J etc.
I'm -1 to this, but it's not a -1-able thing.  Projects are free to 
apply for top level status if they want.

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


Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy
Ah now it all makes sense :)

May be this should be included with the CLA and then there would be no reason to lobby for more 
members, really.

-Harish

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

I don't see the distinction between a PMC member and a committer.


grin You catch on quickly.  :-)  The difference is that a PMC member, as
a normative statement, has a binding vote on the project.  By allowing
someone to become a Committer, you allow direct contribution to the
codebase, but the PMC is overseeing it.  The Committer contributes, but does
not have a say.  So there is a natural progression from:
  Contributor (patches) - Committer (authorized access) - PMC member


If the PMC membership requires legal and governing skills, I am
not sure the PMC can attain vast majority.


It doesn't.  300+ Committers are already doing most of what they need to do,
without the benefit of being on a PMC.

Is there a legal binding between a [PMC] member and Jakarta/Apache
that does not exist between a committer and Apache?


Please see:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.orgmsgNo=2711.
	--- Noel

-
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: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy


Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

On Dec 18, 2003, at 3:08 PM, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:

Ah now it all makes sense :)

May be this should be included with the CLA and then there would be 
no  reason to lobby for more members, really.


We want to make sure that the PMC members are committers who understand  
the responsibility and are willing to take it.  Automatic inclusion  
doesn't do that.
But it seems that the exact responsibilities is not really laid out and is the primary reason for 
confusion?



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


Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Dirk Verbeeck
+1

If this is acceptable by the board then it's the ideal solution.
No changes to the email/website structure, jakarta remains the center 
of the apache java development with a shared announcement list, 
general list, news and download pages, ...

The only change is that the board gets a list of members overseeing 
each project (=PMC) and additionally a Jakarta Community project 
building a java community at Apache. (assisting the java projects)
The board will not get one big report from jakarta but many small ones 
and can see witch (sub)projects needs more members.

Of course many members will be joining multiple PMCs.
Is this possible?
-- Dirk



Noel J. Bergman wrote:

There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There is
absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:
  Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
  Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
  Struts PMC: struts and related code
  Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
  Tapestry PMC: ...
  ...
All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.

No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's
legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this confirmed
already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution to the
Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.
	--- Noel




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


Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Ted Husted
To do this, each product would simply need to draft a resolution to 
create the PMC and select a chair, and ask that it be placed on the 
board's agenda for the next meeting, just as Log4J and the others did. 
It would be very important that each product do this themselves, to help 
show they are ready for self-management.

Essentially, each product would still be a TLP, but would just be hosted 
at Jakarta.

This option has always been available, it's just that every product 
since Ant has chosen to have their own hostname and website.

It's also important to remember that some of these products, like Log4J, 
are not just about Java anymore. The Apache Logging project will have 
compatible codebases available for half-a-dozen platforms. (Now *that's* 
community building!)

-Ted.

Dirk Verbeeck wrote:
+1

If this is acceptable by the board then it's the ideal solution.
No changes to the email/website structure, jakarta remains the center of 
the apache java development with a shared announcement list, general 
list, news and download pages, ...

The only change is that the board gets a list of members overseeing each 
project (=PMC) and additionally a Jakarta Community project building a 
java community at Apache. (assisting the java projects)
The board will not get one big report from jakarta but many small ones 
and can see witch (sub)projects needs more members.

Of course many members will be joining multiple PMCs.
Is this possible?
-- Dirk



Noel J. Bergman wrote:

There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There is
absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:
  Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
  Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
  Struts PMC: struts and related code
  Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
  Tapestry PMC: ...
  ...
All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.

No one should feel that there is any relationship between the 
Foundation's
legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this confirmed
already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution 
to the
Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.

--- Noel




-
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: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Dirk Verbeeck
I'm not asking for a change, I only see a lot of mails again and again 
about the board asking for more insight into the working of jakarta.
Same with the whole jakarta-commons  apache-commons discussion.

If this can be solved by just doing some paperwork (writing down who 
is supervising what) then just do that and move on.
I'm sure we can find enough people to create the project PMCs and 
every java member would be on the Jakarta Community PMC to guide 
the cross project guidelines/resources (from a java community 
perspective).

Everything will remain the same like it is today only the board will 
get more info about the state of each project.

If a project wants their own hostname/website then let them.
For log4j it makes sense because of the multi language aspect, or for 
mega projects like geronimo but otherwise...

--Dirk

Ted Husted wrote:
To do this, each product would simply need to draft a resolution to 
create the PMC and select a chair, and ask that it be placed on the 
board's agenda for the next meeting, just as Log4J and the others did. 
It would be very important that each product do this themselves, to help 
show they are ready for self-management.

Essentially, each product would still be a TLP, but would just be hosted 
at Jakarta.

This option has always been available, it's just that every product 
since Ant has chosen to have their own hostname and website.

It's also important to remember that some of these products, like Log4J, 
are not just about Java anymore. The Apache Logging project will have 
compatible codebases available for half-a-dozen platforms. (Now *that's* 
community building!)

-Ted.


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


Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
1) s/product/sub-project/

2) I don't know what 'hosted at Jakarta' means.  The CVS repositories 
are ASF respositories - there is no hierarchy grouping them as 
'jakarta'.  As for using the Jakarta website, the Jakarta community 
would be responsible for it, and thus they will decide on it's content. 
 IOW,  ASF projects that the Jakarta community has no oversight or 
responsibility for will be able to be a part of the Jakarta site at 
their pleasure. It's simply common sense.

geir

On Dec 18, 2003, at 5:45 PM, Ted Husted wrote:

To do this, each product would simply need to draft a resolution to 
create the PMC and select a chair, and ask that it be placed on the 
board's agenda for the next meeting, just as Log4J and the others did. 
It would be very important that each product do this themselves, to 
help show they are ready for self-management.

Essentially, each product would still be a TLP, but would just be 
hosted at Jakarta.

This option has always been available, it's just that every product 
since Ant has chosen to have their own hostname and website.

It's also important to remember that some of these products, like 
Log4J, are not just about Java anymore. The Apache Logging project 
will have compatible codebases available for half-a-dozen platforms. 
(Now *that's* community building!)

-Ted.

Dirk Verbeeck wrote:
+1
If this is acceptable by the board then it's the ideal solution.
No changes to the email/website structure, jakarta remains the center 
of the apache java development with a shared announcement list, 
general list, news and download pages, ...
The only change is that the board gets a list of members overseeing 
each project (=PMC) and additionally a Jakarta Community project 
building a java community at Apache. (assisting the java projects)
The board will not get one big report from jakarta but many small 
ones and can see witch (sub)projects needs more members.
Of course many members will be joining multiple PMCs.
Is this possible?
-- Dirk
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  
There is
absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:

  Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
  Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
  Struts PMC: struts and related code
  Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
  Tapestry PMC: ...
  ...
All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.

No one should feel that there is any relationship between the 
Foundation's
legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this 
confirmed
already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution 
to the
Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.

--- Noel
-
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]

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


Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Henri Yandell

Multiple PMCs is not a problem. There are James, Maven people on the
Jakarta PMC etc.

The idea below still concerns me. If all the PMC's share the same website,
who is responsible for the website as a global concept. For example, the
need to do mirrors.

If a Jakarta-Site PMC exists, all other PMCs [jakarta sub-project based]
are accepting the Jakarta Site PMC's oversight over their websites.

Hen

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:

  From what I have understood today, this seems like a nice option to me to 
 straighten things out.

 +1

 -Harish

 Dirk Verbeeck wrote:

  +1
 
  If this is acceptable by the board then it's the ideal solution.
  No changes to the email/website structure, jakarta remains the center of
  the apache java development with a shared announcement list, general
  list, news and download pages, ...
 
  The only change is that the board gets a list of members overseeing each
  project (=PMC) and additionally a Jakarta Community project building a
  java community at Apache. (assisting the java projects)
  The board will not get one big report from jakarta but many small ones
  and can see witch (sub)projects needs more members.
 
  Of course many members will be joining multiple PMCs.
  Is this possible?
 
  -- Dirk
 
 
 
  Noel J. Bergman wrote:
 
  There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There is
  absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:
 
Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
Struts PMC: struts and related code
Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
Tapestry PMC: ...
...
 
  All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.
 
  No one should feel that there is any relationship between the
  Foundation's
  legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this confirmed
  already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution
  to the
  Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.
 
  --- Noel
 
 
 
 
 
  -
  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: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy


Henri Yandell wrote:

Multiple PMCs is not a problem. There are James, Maven people on the
Jakarta PMC etc.
The idea below still concerns me. If all the PMC's share the same website,
who is responsible for the website as a global concept. For example, the
need to do mirrors.
If a Jakarta-Site PMC exists, all other PMCs [jakarta sub-project based]
are accepting the Jakarta Site PMC's oversight over their websites.
Why is this a problem? I think it is good to be that way. How is Apache website handled btw? May be 
we can follow suit?

-Harish

Hen

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:


From what I have understood today, this seems like a nice option to me to straighten things out.

+1

-Harish

Dirk Verbeeck wrote:


+1

If this is acceptable by the board then it's the ideal solution.
No changes to the email/website structure, jakarta remains the center of
the apache java development with a shared announcement list, general
list, news and download pages, ...
The only change is that the board gets a list of members overseeing each
project (=PMC) and additionally a Jakarta Community project building a
java community at Apache. (assisting the java projects)
The board will not get one big report from jakarta but many small ones
and can see witch (sub)projects needs more members.
Of course many members will be joining multiple PMCs.
Is this possible?
-- Dirk



Noel J. Bergman wrote:


There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There is
absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:
 Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
 Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
 Struts PMC: struts and related code
 Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
 Tapestry PMC: ...
 ...
All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.

No one should feel that there is any relationship between the
Foundation's
legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this confirmed
already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution
to the
Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.
   --- Noel




-
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: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 18, 2003, at 5:27 PM, Dirk Verbeeck wrote:

+1

If this is acceptable by the board then it's the ideal solution.
No changes to the email/website structure, jakarta remains the center 
of the apache java development with a shared announcement list, 
general list, news and download pages, ...

The only change is that the board gets a list of members overseeing 
each project (=PMC) and additionally a Jakarta Community project 
building a java community at Apache. (assisting the java projects)
The board will not get one big report from jakarta but many small ones 
and can see witch (sub)projects needs more members.

Yes, the board gets 1 report from each little project.  Jakarta is thus 
broken up.

It think this is a bad idea.

We have other problems to solve first.  Lets solve them and take care 
of our responsibility for oversight.

Then you can break up Jakarta for whatever reason you think makes that 
sensible.  At least then I don't feel like we punted on the oversight 
issue.

geir


Of course many members will be joining multiple PMCs.
Is this possible?
-- Dirk



Noel J. Bergman wrote:

There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There 
is
absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:
  Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
  Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
  Struts PMC: struts and related code
  Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
  Tapestry PMC: ...
  ...
All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.
No one should feel that there is any relationship between the 
Foundation's
legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We have had this confirmed
already by both Greg and Sam.  The above *is* an acceptable solution 
to the
Board.  The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.
	--- 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: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Noel J. Bergman
Henri Yandell wrote:

 If all the PMC's share the same website, who is responsible
 for the website as a global concept. For example, the need
 to do mirrors.

 If a Jakarta-Site PMC exists, all other PMCs [jakarta sub-project based]
 are accepting the Jakarta Site PMC's oversight over their websites.

How do you think the Jakarta site works already?  The site2 module is just
the core Jakarta site.  All of the projects already have their own sites
in their own CVS, which are then checked out under the
/www/jakarta.apache.org/$project.  Nothing would have to change, unless a
project *wanted* a new domain, from what I can see.  Am I missing your
point?  I'm just not seeing the problem.

--- Noel


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



RE: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

2003-12-18 Thread Craig R. McClanahan
Quoting Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 Henri Yandell wrote:
 
  If all the PMC's share the same website, who is responsible
  for the website as a global concept. For example, the need
  to do mirrors.
 
  If a Jakarta-Site PMC exists, all other PMCs [jakarta sub-project based]
  are accepting the Jakarta Site PMC's oversight over their websites.
 
 How do you think the Jakarta site works already?  The site2 module is just
 the core Jakarta site.  All of the projects already have their own sites
 in their own CVS, which are then checked out under the
 /www/jakarta.apache.org/$project.

And all of those $project sites are under oversight of the Jakarta PMC.  There
is no such thing as a jakarta sub-project based PMC.

 Nothing would have to change, unless a
 project *wanted* a new domain, from what I can see.  Am I missing your
 point?  I'm just not seeing the problem.
 

Although I'm  sympathetic to the idea that Jakarta sub-projects who then become
TLPs might want to maintain their jakarta.apache.org/$project web site for
brand identification purposes, I'm concerned about the potential for external
confusion over who's in charge here.  The reality would be that the Jakarta
PMC would (correctly) *not* think they had management over that subdirectory of
the site, but the legal distinction would be very likely missed by anyone who
is visiting.

If/when Struts becomes a TLP, I'm going to recommend that we do exactly what
Ant, James, and Maven (for example) did:

* Maintain a link on the Jakarta home page under Related

* Install a webserver redirect from http://jakarta.apache.org/struts
  to http://struts.apache.org.

   --- Noel

Craig


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