You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com> on 2003/12/28 15:39:30 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour
of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd
place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
Background info:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
Stephen
PROPOSAL
The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top Level
Project (TLP) status.
It shall do this by
- drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings
- explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a
subproject's rights
- documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs
- produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP
- clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation
- proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists
- setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes
In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be those
of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, with
the exact list to be determined by the dev list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
Agreed on the -1 for the proposal's subject line, yet +1 to Stephen's
suggestions of preparing Wiki resources for Jakarta sub-projects that want
to move to TLP-ness.
I do plan to proactively encourage TLP status for Commons, but as a
Commons committer. As a Taglibs committer I'm happy where it is. Etc.
Hen
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Robert Leland wrote:
> -1
>
> My knee jerk reaction to Proactively encourage TLP status" is the same
> as I had to one of my conservative friend who set out to
> convert a family of another religion to their true religion. That is
> repugnant to me, and so is "Proactively encourage TLP status"
>
>
> If you want to make the information available in a well documented
> fashion on how to go TLP
> then +1. For example I am happy where Struts is now, in Jakarta. If
> Martin & Ted want to
> expend energy making it a TLP I won't -1 it but would -0 it if that
> was a voting option.
> For Jakarta Commons I would Strongly -1, to pull out major components
> like collections.
> The Jakarta Commons works. It is absolutely one of the most vibrant
> communities around.
>
> As one of the growing number of new PMC members, I want to focus on
> IP/Licensing matters.
> I understand that TLP changes what we take responsibility of for Jakarta
> PMC,
> but to me it is just one more distraction I don't need right now. I'll
> take each project that wants to
> go TLP case by case, its their right to do that, but hope that they
> think long and hard about it.
>
> -Rob
>
> Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> >There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the
> >sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in
> >the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the
> >consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour
> >of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd
> >place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
> >
> >Background info:
> >http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
> >
> >Stephen
> >
> >PROPOSAL
> >The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top Level
> >Project (TLP) status.
> >
> >It shall do this by
> >- drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings
> >- explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a
> >subproject's rights
> >- documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs
> >- produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP
> >- clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation
> >- proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists
> >- setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes
> >
> >In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be those
> >of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, with
> >the exact list to be determined by the dev list.
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Robert Leland <rl...@apache.org>.
-1
My knee jerk reaction to Proactively encourage TLP status" is the same
as I had to one of my conservative friend who set out to
convert a family of another religion to their true religion. That is
repugnant to me, and so is "Proactively encourage TLP status"
If you want to make the information available in a well documented
fashion on how to go TLP
then +1. For example I am happy where Struts is now, in Jakarta. If
Martin & Ted want to
expend energy making it a TLP I won't -1 it but would -0 it if that
was a voting option.
For Jakarta Commons I would Strongly -1, to pull out major components
like collections.
The Jakarta Commons works. It is absolutely one of the most vibrant
communities around.
As one of the growing number of new PMC members, I want to focus on
IP/Licensing matters.
I understand that TLP changes what we take responsibility of for Jakarta
PMC,
but to me it is just one more distraction I don't need right now. I'll
take each project that wants to
go TLP case by case, its their right to do that, but hope that they
think long and hard about it.
-Rob
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the
>sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in
>the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the
>consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour
>of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd
>place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
>
>Background info:
>http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
>
>Stephen
>
>PROPOSAL
>The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top Level
>Project (TLP) status.
>
>It shall do this by
>- drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings
>- explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a
>subproject's rights
>- documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs
>- produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP
>- clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation
>- proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists
>- setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes
>
>In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be those
>of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, with
>the exact list to be determined by the dev list.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: EU analogy [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:45:18 +0100
Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >Perhaps the parallel is that a Struts 'citizen' identifies more with the
> >Struts 'country' than the Jakarta 'union'. Of course one key difference is
> >that we don't have the individual governments at the country/Struts level.
> +100
Since i introduced "EU analogy" to this list a few days ago :),
I comment.
--
As the Name "Apache" and the "lex causae" would be highly related to
the United States, I was wondering what would fit to describe
"Apache" and "Jakarta" communities themselves, and have been casting
about in my mind for good words.
Well, there could be two styles of the OSS communities
-- American Style ("United" States) ...... (1)
-- European Style ("Union" of Nations) ... (2)
What I could perceive from the participation to this community was
the latter style. So, I used "EU analogy".
The keyword would be "Identity". Yes, I know that we can rather
describe the history of the Apache/Jakarta better by using
"United States" styled analogy, however, the strong "Identity"
of the each communities in Apache realm can be described by "EU
analogy" better, i suspect.
Please do not use the analogy in order "to dispute" forever.
Please use it in order "to strengthen the understandings of
the community and to achieve the improvement of the community".
(1) and (2) have their own "good" points. Piling up "good points"
would be one of the key factors which can keep the health
of the OSS communities.
I am not in the United states nor in Europe.
Thanks,
-- Tetsuya. (tetsuya@apache.org)
P.S. (1) --- related to right-side cerebral cortex in brain
(2) --- related to right-side limbic system in brain
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: EU analogy [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>>you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :) Talk about
>>>>over-regulation...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>LOL :-) OK, so it is a bad analogy. I don't believe that either
>>>Costin or
>>>I live in the EU.
>>>
>>>
>>I don't either. I live in Connecticut, USA.
>>
>>I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to integrate
>>proud countries with long individual histories, but it was confirmed
>>the first time I had to schelp from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3 at
>>Heathrow just so I could pick up the bus to Reading, which used to stop
>>at all 4 terminals, but stopped going to terminal 4 because EU regs
>>said the total trip was too long. The whole thing is something like an
>>hour. :/
>>
>>
>
>I live in the UK, so can comment ;-) The thing that I spot about the EU is
>that is is often used as a scapegoat. When individual countries (or often
>the media) wants to shift blame it is convenient. This comes about because
>citizens of each country identify more with their own country than with the
>EU. (Note: I believe that the EU does a lot of good, but it'll never be my
>country)
>
>Perhaps the parallel is that a Struts 'citizen' identifies more with the
>Struts 'country' than the Jakarta 'union'. Of course one key difference is
>that we don't have the individual governments at the country/Struts level.
>
+100
Stephen.
>
>Stephen
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
|------------------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin |
| http://dpml.net/ |
|------------------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: EU analogy [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
> >> you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :) Talk about
> >> over-regulation...
> >
> > LOL :-) OK, so it is a bad analogy. I don't believe that either
> > Costin or
> > I live in the EU.
>
> I don't either. I live in Connecticut, USA.
>
> I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to integrate
> proud countries with long individual histories, but it was confirmed
> the first time I had to schelp from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3 at
> Heathrow just so I could pick up the bus to Reading, which used to stop
> at all 4 terminals, but stopped going to terminal 4 because EU regs
> said the total trip was too long. The whole thing is something like an
> hour. :/
I live in the UK, so can comment ;-) The thing that I spot about the EU is
that is is often used as a scapegoat. When individual countries (or often
the media) wants to shift blame it is convenient. This comes about because
citizens of each country identify more with their own country than with the
EU. (Note: I believe that the EU does a lot of good, but it'll never be my
country)
Perhaps the parallel is that a Struts 'citizen' identifies more with the
Struts 'country' than the Jakarta 'union'. Of course one key difference is
that we don't have the individual governments at the country/Struts level.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a
>> restaurant under EU regs. They must keep them cold until being
>> served. Ug.
>
>
>
> I can help you out on this particular subject!
> No shortage of soft cheese ready for a stated day of delivery where live.
s/where live/where I live
SJM
>
>
> Stephen.
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
|------------------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin |
| http://dpml.net/ |
|------------------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a
> restaurant under EU regs. They must keep them cold until being
> served. Ug.
I can help you out on this particular subject!
No shortage of soft cheese ready for a stated day of delivery where live.
Stephen.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
|------------------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin |
| http://dpml.net/ |
|------------------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 6:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :) Talk about
>> over-regulation...
>
> LOL :-) OK, so it is a bad analogy. I don't believe that either
> Costin or
> I live in the EU.
I don't either. I live in Connecticut, USA.
I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to integrate
proud countries with long individual histories, but it was confirmed
the first time I had to schelp from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3 at
Heathrow just so I could pick up the bus to Reading, which used to stop
at all 4 terminals, but stopped going to terminal 4 because EU regs
said the total trip was too long. The whole thing is something like an
hour. :/
You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a
restaurant under EU regs. They must keep them cold until being served.
Ug.
>
>>> The PMC is supposed to be performing "the active management of one or
>>> more projects", not ensuring that other people are doing it. The PMC
>>> is not supposed to be a body of auditors. I see your analogy as
>>> describing self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC,
>>> who operate a collective for the common good.
>
>> Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management
>> (i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.
>
> As I've said, let's do it. Get them on. And then see which projects
> decide
> to form their own PMC. The issue I was commenting on is not to lose a
> sense
> of community with those projects who choose to form their own PMC.
True.
geir
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :) Talk about
> over-regulation...
LOL :-) OK, so it is a bad analogy. I don't believe that either Costin or
I live in the EU.
> > The PMC is supposed to be performing "the active management of one or
> > more projects", not ensuring that other people are doing it. The PMC
> > is not supposed to be a body of auditors. I see your analogy as
> > describing self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC,
> > who operate a collective for the common good.
> Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management
> (i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.
As I've said, let's do it. Get them on. And then see which projects decide
to form their own PMC. The issue I was commenting on is not to lose a sense
of community with those projects who choose to form their own PMC.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 3:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
>> I see jakarta more like a union ( EU-style ), were the different
>> projects that joined are mature entities that choose to be part
>> of jakarta ( and can choose to get out - all that's needed is a
>> vote ). And the PMC role is to make sure the rules are respected
>
> Project maturity aside, I was with you up until the last sentence.
Then you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :) Talk about
over-regulation...
> The PMC
> is supposed to be performing "the active management of one or more
> projects", not ensuring that other people are doing it. The PMC is not
> supposed to be a body of auditors. I see your analogy as describing
> self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC, who operate a
> collective for the common good.
Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management
(i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.
geir
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Costin Manolache wrote:
> I see jakarta more like a union ( EU-style ), were the different
> projects that joined are mature entities that choose to be part
> of jakarta ( and can choose to get out - all that's needed is a
> vote ). And the PMC role is to make sure the rules are respected
Project maturity aside, I was with you up until the last sentence. The PMC
is supposed to be performing "the active management of one or more
projects", not ensuring that other people are doing it. The PMC is not
supposed to be a body of auditors. I see your analogy as describing
self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC, who operate a
collective for the common good.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
>
>>What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.
>
> To use an analogy, its like being the parents of a family, where the
> children, aged from 4 to 40, are all living at home. It strikes me that it
> isn't healthy for that 40 year old to be living at home, expecting his
> parents to do the washing, feed him and make his bed. Instead, the good
> parent should be gently enabling the child to set out on their own in the
> next phase of their life.
>
> Sometimes letting go is the hardest part of being a parent.
>
> Stephen
So you consider jakarta subprojects as some children, the PMC that makes
the bed and feeds them ? ( and the board as the "big brother" I suppose:-)?
I don't know where did you get this idea, but it seems there are quite a
few people who feel like "big brothers" who know what's better for the
childish jakarta projects and would like to "encourage" them to do what
they think is best.
I see jakarta more like a union ( EU-style ), were the different
projects that joined are mature entities that choose to
be part of jakarta ( and can choose to get out - all that's needed is a
vote ). And the PMC role is to make sure the rules are respected (
oversight ) - not to wash/feed/make the bed for subprojects.
So I'm -1 on your proposal ( if you care counting - it seems most people
who propose pushing projects to TLP would do anything to reach this goal
- except proposing this in the sub-projects they participate in and
counting the resulting votes ).
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
>> What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.
> To use an analogy, its like being the parents of a family, where the
> children, aged from 4 to 40, are all living at home. It strikes me
> that it
> isn't healthy for that 40 year old to be living at home, expecting his
> parents to do the washing, feed him and make his bed. Instead, the good
> parent should be gently enabling the child to set out on their own in
> the
> next phase of their life.
>
> Sometimes letting go is the hardest part of being a parent.
It's a good analogy, but makes the assumption that the Jakarta PMC will
do for the sub-projects whatever is analogous to the care for children
- washing, feeding and bed making.
In fact (from my POV anyway), the Jakarta PMC has done no such thing in
the past, and should do no such thing in the future. [Some proposals
seem to want to enforce bed-making and ironing, but I don't think we
should do that...]
All we're trying to do is get the PMC populated w/ as many committers
as possible, educated as to what oversight means, to satisfy the
oversight requirements of the ASF. That's not something to take
lightly, but it doesn't mandate additional process, control and
procedure either. The board or ASF by-laws require no such
scaffolding.
Things will continue to be community-centered and decisions
community-led. Sub-projects still govern their own activities. The
PMC - composed of all the sub-projects - just makes those activities
legal, in line w/ the oversight requirements of the ASF, and w/ proper
education of the PMC members, helps catch problems.
By becoming a TLP, a sub-project has changed nothing other than remove
some antiquated-and-should-be-changed Jakarta charter restrictions, and
removed itself from the larger community that is Jakarta. And yes, I
recognize that people don't believe me about the last point. :)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
> What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.
To use an analogy, its like being the parents of a family, where the
children, aged from 4 to 40, are all living at home. It strikes me that it
isn't healthy for that 40 year old to be living at home, expecting his
parents to do the washing, feed him and make his bed. Instead, the good
parent should be gently enabling the child to set out on their own in the
next phase of their life.
Sometimes letting go is the hardest part of being a parent.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
I'll try to be brief. I agree w/ you - I don't want to have to watch
ever project. I'm also not interested in endless debate. I'm also not
interested in legislation, process or overbearing procedure. And I'm
not interested in breaking up Jakarta. All I want to do is get CLAs
signed and maximize participation on the PMC that covers all projects
to satisfy the ASF oversight requirements.
My only concern about Lucene (to use your example) is that the code
that comes into the ASF's CVS is free from any problems of provenance,
and that the releases are done with the support of the Lucene
community, and I would be comfortable w/ that if I knew that the active
participants of the Lucene community were on the PMC and understood
what the PMC does.
(Note that we are not advocating any layer of management separate from
the codebase, and have not had that to date.)
As I think that your view of your responsibilities as a PMC members is
mistaken. I'll ask for a clarification of the responsibilities from
someone outside of Jakarta w/ no stake in this debate. I too have no
interest in being forced to be involved w/ any project other than those
I choose to participate in.
geir
On Dec 28, 2003, at 7:05 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
>> We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that
>> states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever
>> part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key
>> word is "directly".
> As a PMC member, I should care whether there is a new Tapestry
> release, or a
> new Lucene committer. These are PMC votes (or should be). But I don't
> care
> (especially ;-). Thus there is a tension between my mandated
> responsibility
> and my actual interests.
>
> This aspect of 'do I care' is key. I read every vote on J-C, I may not
> choose to vote (since adding lots of +0's wastes space), but I care
> about
> the release or new committer. But I don't care about Lucene. Not one
> jot.
> Yet I have equal responsibility for it. This just isn't right.
>
> All I have heard from the original ASF projects indicate to me that
> the PMC
> should represent one codebase and one tight community. Anything else
> leads
> to a layer of management separate from the codebase (aka Jakarta PMC).
> All
> the current debates exist because we have a layer of management which
> we do
> not need.
>
> These debates waste vast amounts of time and energy. Thus PMC members
> are
> given the choice:
> - debate/manage continuously and don't code, or
> - code and ignore the PMC
> I'm unusual in that I'm bothering putting any effort at all into the
> former.
> It won't be long before I'll give up and do the latter. Your POV will
> win on
> the PMC because everyone else has better things to do than argue
> incesantly.
>
>
>> Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one
>> committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand
>> the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the
>> Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is
>> scalable,
>> and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC.
>>
>> Isn't that reasonable?
> No. What you are arguing for is just not human nature. As long as
> there is a
> PMC away from the dev list, with other people from the dev list, with
> other
> responsibilities and issues, people will not associate with it. People
> look
> after what they own, and don't care about what they don't own. They
> may be
> on the PMC in name, but that simply isn't enough. It really isn't.
>
>
>> The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force
>> behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion
>> that Jakarta as a whole is also a community.
> The question that we cannot know the answer to (without a time
> machine) is
> whether the same result would have occurred if Jakarta had not
> existed. ie.
> Is J-C a product of Jakarta, or a product of the need for shared Java
> code.
> You believe its the former, I wasn't around so can't really comment,
> however
> I see no great reason why exactly the same J-C couldn't have occurred
> without Jakarta.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
> We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that
> states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever
> part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key
> word is "directly".
As a PMC member, I should care whether there is a new Tapestry release, or a
new Lucene committer. These are PMC votes (or should be). But I don't care
(especially ;-). Thus there is a tension between my mandated responsibility
and my actual interests.
This aspect of 'do I care' is key. I read every vote on J-C, I may not
choose to vote (since adding lots of +0's wastes space), but I care about
the release or new committer. But I don't care about Lucene. Not one jot.
Yet I have equal responsibility for it. This just isn't right.
All I have heard from the original ASF projects indicate to me that the PMC
should represent one codebase and one tight community. Anything else leads
to a layer of management separate from the codebase (aka Jakarta PMC). All
the current debates exist because we have a layer of management which we do
not need.
These debates waste vast amounts of time and energy. Thus PMC members are
given the choice:
- debate/manage continuously and don't code, or
- code and ignore the PMC
I'm unusual in that I'm bothering putting any effort at all into the former.
It won't be long before I'll give up and do the latter. Your POV will win on
the PMC because everyone else has better things to do than argue incesantly.
> Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one
> committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand
> the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the
> Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is scalable,
> and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC.
>
> Isn't that reasonable?
No. What you are arguing for is just not human nature. As long as there is a
PMC away from the dev list, with other people from the dev list, with other
responsibilities and issues, people will not associate with it. People look
after what they own, and don't care about what they don't own. They may be
on the PMC in name, but that simply isn't enough. It really isn't.
> The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force
> behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion
> that Jakarta as a whole is also a community.
The question that we cannot know the answer to (without a time machine) is
whether the same result would have occurred if Jakarta had not existed. ie.
Is J-C a product of Jakarta, or a product of the need for shared Java code.
You believe its the former, I wasn't around so can't really comment, however
I see no great reason why exactly the same J-C couldn't have occurred
without Jakarta.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 4:44 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
>> I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
>> additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC. I
>> would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight
>> independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of
>> work.
> Well this is a key point. I believe that now I am a Jakarta PMC member
> I
> have direct responsibility for ALL subprojects. Given the breadth of
> Jakarta
> this is a ridiculous position. So, it is more work. Much more work. For
> example, I have spent much less time coding in the last 4 weeks. And
> thats
> just plain wrong.
We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that
states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever
part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key
word is "directly".
Think about it. How could this possibly work in ANY ASF project of any
useful size? You couldn't do a Commons TLP (be it A-C or J-C) if every
participant was directly and personally responsible for every shred of
activity.
Here is what the ASF bylaws say :
"Subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, the chairman of
each Project Management Committee shall be primarily responsible for
project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she shall establish
rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for
which the committee is responsible"
A reasonable person should *not* read this to mean the PMC chair is
directly, actively responsible in that he or she must read every
commit, watch ever mail list, and see every site and wiki change -
rather he or she is able and required to organize the day-to-day
management as he or she sees fit (subject to board approval) such that
all code, site, mail and wiki's are covered by active, responsible
oversight. In the event that the management does *not* do this, the
chair is responsible, but that's a huge difference from the 'every
shred' model.
Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one
committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand
the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the
Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is scalable,
and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC.
Isn't that reasonable?
>
> If I'm not careful, I'll go crazy like Robert. So I may choose to
> leave the
> PMC. Others will too, either actually resign, or just ignore it.
> Oversight
> is NOT increased - the basic approach of sign 'em up is flawed.
"sign 'em up" is flawed, but not for the reason above (which I think is
simply a misunderstanding on your part.) It's flawed because we can't
assert that those tasked with oversight (of their projects) on behalf
of the ASF as PMC member is doing their job is they didn't ask to do it
and/or be trained to do it. I first floated the 'deputize them all'
approach on the PMC list a while ago, and I'll be the first to say that
I was wrong.
>
>> The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community
>> versus Jakarta as a website.
> The communities are the subprojects.
And the subprojects together are also a community. I'm not the only
one that recognizes this.
>
>> Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might
>> illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say.
> Sorry, but I don't get you. A-C was a board invention. If it didn't
> exist
> then J-C would be able to TLP cleanly. Perhaps you need to explain
> more. In
> fact, perhaps you should set out in a separate thread as to where you
> see
> Jakarta in 3-6 months time.
I'll be happy to do the latter. As for the former:
A-C was a board invention, as you note, and I think a well-intentioned
one. However, after 14 months, it has a single codebase (a http client
written in C).
J-C was a 'bottom-up' effort of multiple people in the Jakarta
community from many *different* sub-projects that self-organized,
debated independently (and incessantly) about the charter, presented
the proposal to the PMC, had it approved and then rolled up their
sleeves and got to work, with the resulting vibrant, productive
community.
The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force
behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion
that Jakarta as a whole is also a community.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
> I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
> additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC. I
> would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight
> independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of
> work.
Well this is a key point. I believe that now I am a Jakarta PMC member I
have direct responsibility for ALL subprojects. Given the breadth of Jakarta
this is a ridiculous position. So, it is more work. Much more work. For
example, I have spent much less time coding in the last 4 weeks. And thats
just plain wrong.
If I'm not careful, I'll go crazy like Robert. So I may choose to leave the
PMC. Others will too, either actually resign, or just ignore it. Oversight
is NOT increased - the basic approach of sign 'em up is flawed.
> The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community
> versus Jakarta as a website.
The communities are the subprojects.
> Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might
> illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say.
Sorry, but I don't get you. A-C was a board invention. If it didn't exist
then J-C would be able to TLP cleanly. Perhaps you need to explain more. In
fact, perhaps you should set out in a separate thread as to where you see
Jakarta in 3-6 months time.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We see a couple of things differently. For one, you don't seem to believe
that a community can be built by multiple collaborating PMCs.
I don't believe that the Apache vs Jakarta Commons analogy applies. AFAICS,
Apache Commons was an idea created before it had a community. A project
needs a community. I feel that Apache Commons could be another hub, for
Commons projects.
> just glomming everyone [onto the PMC] wouldn't result in
> the best outcome as we want to make sure that people are
> explicitly signing up for project oversight, rather than
> being drafted to meet a quota.
I agree, but getting the active committers onto the PMC isn't a matter of
meeting a quota. The PMC is supposed to be made up of the people actively
managing the project. That is its raison d'etre.
> > Personally, I don't feel that a 400+ person PMC overseeing dozens of
> > codebases represents a truely functional solution, but we can give it
> > a go.
> I can't see why not. The point of oversight is to catch the cases
> where things aren't right (i.e. code comes into the CVS that
> shouldn't w/o incubation) rather than continuously report when
> things are going well.
A PMC is not just about oversight. The PMC is supposed to provide the
active managment of the project. Code review, voting in new Committers,
voting in new PMC members, voting on releases, etc. I do not believe that
Stephen Colebourne is unique in his outlook, nor incorrect in his approach.
> I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
> additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC.
What I say presupposes that having a PMC consisting of 400+ people, with a
lot of different disjoint factions keeping up on any of dozens of projects
is a PMC in name only, and that asking everyone to watch everything under
such a PMC would be impractical.
> I would argue that it's no different - if you are providing
> oversight independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the
> same amount of work.
Not if people, like Stephen, decide that being responsible for active
project management means having to at least follow every project. If you
tell me that doing that won't scale, I will agree.
That said, I'm willing to start with the mega-PMC. I just don't expect it
to last. I expect projects to start asking for promotion to TLP status.
> The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community
> versus Jakarta as a website.
What in particular makes Jakarta a community, as you see it? This is not an
idle question. If you look at the question from the perspective of my
expectations, and you accept that I really do want to help preserve the idea
of a Jakarta community, then understanding how to structure a community that
survives the creation of multiple new PMCs takes on some importance.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 1:42 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta and continue
>> to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving
>> a friend after a visit.
>
> I understand. And I understand why you view Jakarta that way. Why do
> you
> not feel that Jakarta could be an active community hub, as has been the
> subject of several discussions?
I just don't think it will happen. It will be a website at best, and a
bad website at worst.
As an example, look at the difference between Jakarta Commons to Apache
Commons.
>
>> Jakarta will always have a PMC. Unless the board changes the Jakarta
>> PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and
>> communications of Jakarta.
>
> The Jakarta PMC must oversee all codebases within its "project."
And it's website, the project websites, the mail lists and the usage of
CVS.
> This
> implies that we should start by adding almost all currently active
> Committers to the Jakarta PMC.
That's what we're trying to do.
> That is something the PMC could do,
> pro-actively, right now without further delay. Taking that action
> would
> mean that the majority of Committers would be on the PMC and general
> lists,
> improving the ability of the PMC to represent a true consensus of where
> Jakarta should go, and addressing a concern that we both share regard
> educating the Committers about their oversight responsibilities.
But we've discussed this, and just glomming everyone wouldn't result in
the best outcome as we want to make sure that people are explicitly
signing up for project oversight, rather than being drafted to meet a
quota.
>
> Personally, I don't feel that a 400+ person PMC overseeing dozens of
> codebases represents a truely functional solution, but we can give it
> a go.
I can't see why not. The point of oversight is to catch the cases
where things aren't right (i.e. code comes into the CVS that shouldn't
w/o incubation) rather than continuously report when things are going
well.
> It is my belief that subsequently more projects are going to want to
> seek
> TLP status, and that we will be all the better for it in terms of
> oversight
> and direct participation. So the question remains whether Jakarta
> should
> turn itself into a hub, so that when the subprojects acquire TLP
> status,
> they aren't "forced" to leave the community.
I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC. I
would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight
independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of
work.
The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community
versus Jakarta as a website.
Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might
illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say.
geir
>
>> it's entirely up to us.
>
> Exactly. :-)
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta and continue
> to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving
> a friend after a visit.
I understand. And I understand why you view Jakarta that way. Why do you
not feel that Jakarta could be an active community hub, as has been the
subject of several discussions?
> Jakarta will always have a PMC. Unless the board changes the Jakarta
> PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and
> communications of Jakarta.
The Jakarta PMC must oversee all codebases within its "project." This
implies that we should start by adding almost all currently active
Committers to the Jakarta PMC. That is something the PMC could do,
pro-actively, right now without further delay. Taking that action would
mean that the majority of Committers would be on the PMC and general lists,
improving the ability of the PMC to represent a true consensus of where
Jakarta should go, and addressing a concern that we both share regard
educating the Committers about their oversight responsibilities.
Personally, I don't feel that a 400+ person PMC overseeing dozens of
codebases represents a truely functional solution, but we can give it a go.
It is my belief that subsequently more projects are going to want to seek
TLP status, and that we will be all the better for it in terms of oversight
and direct participation. So the question remains whether Jakarta should
turn itself into a hub, so that when the subprojects acquire TLP status,
they aren't "forced" to leave the community.
> it's entirely up to us.
Exactly. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Geir,
>
> I agree with everything that you said, except one. You have the idea
> that
> when a project moves to TLP status it leaves Jakarta, and that saddens
> you.
In the above sentence, there is one correct statement :
".. when a project moves to TLP status, it leaves Jakarta."
(this is a correct and true statement) and one sort-of correct
statement :
"... and that saddens you."
As it's bitter-sweet - it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta
and continue to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving
a friend after a visit.
What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.
> You said the same thing when Logging was promoted, and Ceki tried to
> reassure you that it wasn't going far.
I was 100% supportive of logging going, and hope to see it prosper.
However, it did go. :)
>
> Although I concur that projects that been promoted to TLP status have
> reduced their ties somewhat with Jakarta, that need not be the case.
> If you
> want Jakarta to be an active community hub, it can be so without a
> monolothic PMC.
Jakarta will always have a PMC. Unless the board changes the Jakarta
PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and
communications of Jakarta. We may allow other Apache projects to have
links and resources on our website, for example, but as it is the
Jakarta PMC legally required to oversee such resources and activities,
it's entirely up to us.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Geir,
I agree with everything that you said, except one. You have the idea that
when a project moves to TLP status it leaves Jakarta, and that saddens you.
You said the same thing when Logging was promoted, and Ceki tried to
reassure you that it wasn't going far.
Although I concur that projects that been promoted to TLP status have
reduced their ties somewhat with Jakarta, that need not be the case. If you
want Jakarta to be an active community hub, it can be so without a
monolothic PMC.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 9:39 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks
> for the
> sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to
> Jakarta in
> the hope the board will stop hassling us.
The board isn't "hassling". They have valid concerns that they know we
are working on, and they are even helping. This doesn't mean we are
out of the woods by any means, but we're not being "hassled".
> This could be because this is the
> consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in
> favour
> of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought
> I'd
> place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
>
> Background info:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
>
> Stephen
>
> PROPOSAL
> The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top
> Level
> Project (TLP) status.
>
> It shall do this by
> - drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings
> - explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a
> subproject's rights
> - documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs
> - produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP
> - clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation
> - proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists
> - setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes
>
> In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be
> those
> of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions,
> with
> the exact list to be determined by the dev list.
>
-1 from me
I fully support and respect sup-projects deciding on their own to leave
Jakarta and be a TLP if they feel it's better for their community and
code, but I see no reason for the PMC to make it their purpose on life
to encourage them. Seems rather pointless. You might as well just
disband Jakarta and save everyone time.
geir
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org