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