You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@xml.apache.org by Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au> on 2003/12/03 11:23:22 UTC
[Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Well, a bit of time has gone by. I thought I'd raise this again and see
where we were.
Would be interested in people's thoughts on the idea below. If we were
to go down this path, we would need to put a transition plan in place to
make it all work.
Would also be interested in whether people have been following the idea
of PPMCs in the Incubator. In essence, each sub-project has it's own
PMC (the PPMC) which is made up of the key players in the sub-project.
Also in the PPMC are all the members of the PMC. The latter are there
purely to provide oversite - i.e. ensure that decisions are being made
appropriately and in the Apache style.
Might be adaptable to the XML project.
Thoughts? Ideally we want to get something agreed for the December
board meeting. I'm not convinced we will manage that, but we should
have some kind of progress report.
Cheers,
Berin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: XML PMC and Oversight
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:08:54 +1100
From: Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au>
Reply-To: board@apache.org
To: pmc@xml.apache.org, board@apache.org, general@xml.apache.org
References:
<20...@localhost>
<20...@lyra.org>
Greg Stein wrote:
> The Board *would* prefer to see more TLPs rather than complicated
> structures under one large PMC. The problem here is based on one PMC
> trying to oversee way too many projects. Partitioning should help.
So, (after much thought and rumination), can we just turn XML into a
federation of TLPs with a common web site, e-mail etc? Most of the
projects in XML would stand on their own, with one or two exceptions
that we could look at gathering together to create a single TLP.
For those that don't particularly want to set up their own web site,
change e-mail lists etc. leave everything as it currently is and have a
group of vulunteers from each member project of the group who take care
of those issues.
Means a few more TLPs = more PMCs for the board to look after, but might
fit more with the spirit of what you are looking for. At the same time,
it prevents an explosion of web-sites and all the stuff that comes with
a TLP.
Any current sub-project preferring their own web site etc. could head
down that path. But keeping everything together gives the grouping of
projects (I believe) a greater focus and wider community.
Also, we could leave the current smaller sub-projects in XML, but have
the XML PMC reduced to members in those sub-projects and require they be
accross all of them (i.e. an active part of -dev in each).
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>.
Watching this ongoing discussion, I am puzzled by the underlying
assumptions. My naive view of Apache is that products are provided
"as-is", with all care and no responsibility. A primary duty of the
Board is to provide for the well-being of Open Source software
development under the Apache banner. That means, inter alia, protecting
the integrity of existing (sub)project releases, cultivating the Apache
developer base, promoting Open Source software development generally and
Apache OSSD in particular, bringing online new projects that fall within
the Apache area of interest, and protecting the good name of the ASF.
The requested changes, as far as I can tell, are being promoted as being
required on legal advice. That seems to me to get the cart before the
horse. If the functions of the Board seem to require certain changes,
how about explaining and justifying them in terms of what we all expect
of the Board? When I hear that "the lawyers said so," I always smell a
rat, to put it bluntly.
If, instead, we were to hear that the functions of the Board are not
being fulfilled under current arrangements, and that this is what the
Board proposed to do about it, then the discussion could proceed towards
consensus on what functions are proper to the Board, and, given that
agreement, to precisely how they were best fulfilled. If, in the course
of the discussion, there is disquiet about the proposals, it seems to me
that, rather than saying, "it's the lawyers," a consensus approach would
be to isolate those elements in the Constitution which are generating
the problematical demands, and talk to the lawyers about changing them
to reflect to reflect the concerns of the community of developers.
That doesn't seem to be happening.
One other interesting aspect of the debate is that it *appears* that the
Board wishes the detailed oversight of, say, code quality, in a
sub-project to occur at a level similar to the current project, and yet
for the (current) sub-projects to report their status individually to
the Board. This is my reading of the comment that the Board can whiz
through all of the extra reports without any strain. If it's so simple,
it doesn't amount to much of an oversight. If the hard yakka of code
reviews and quality oversight is still within, e.g. the XML project, why
not take one report from XML. I assume I've missed the point.
Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au>.
Jason E. Stewart wrote:
>>I worry a little that we're changing things that won't help
>>anything. If there's lack of oversight right now, changing the group
>>structure won't help attain more oversight. These are small projects
>>here in XML land, and people only have a finite amount of time to
>>devote to them. Making projects like AxKit the equivalent of a TLP
>>within a cluster of other TLPs won't change the way AxKit is run.
>
>
> I agree with Matt here. If some could explain why changing the
> structure of the of things is going to help get better oversight for a
> single committer project like Xerces-P, I would be grateful.
Fair call. It won't. There is no single answer to the overall problem.
However doing what you have been talking about in previous e-mail would
work. If you join in with Xerces, then the Xerces-J and Xerces-C
developers can help you in that review process (and I would imagine the
opposite is also true). If we head down a federation path, then nothing
changes for the three Xerces projects, other than they become their own
TLP. I think that's small enough that effective overview can be provided.
>
>
>>More tuits after you pluck them from the trees might :-)
>
>
> If only they were on sale at the corner dosa wala...
<GRIN/>
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Posted by "Jason E. Stewart" <ja...@openinformatics.com>.
Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org> writes:
> I worry a little that we're changing things that won't help
> anything. If there's lack of oversight right now, changing the group
> structure won't help attain more oversight. These are small projects
> here in XML land, and people only have a finite amount of time to
> devote to them. Making projects like AxKit the equivalent of a TLP
> within a cluster of other TLPs won't change the way AxKit is run.
I agree with Matt here. If some could explain why changing the
structure of the of things is going to help get better oversight for a
single committer project like Xerces-P, I would be grateful.
> More tuits after you pluck them from the trees might :-)
If only they were on sale at the corner dosa wala...
Cheers,
jas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
Apologies for the length of time taken to reply :<.
Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> Other than that - you can change as much as you want. With the
>> federation approach, we can all keep working together (if we so
>> desire) within the XML web-site and mailing lists, so nothing changes
>> there, and all us little projects can help each other out with this
>> infrastructure stuff :>.
>
>
> I guess I would come back with the fact that I *like* the XML PMC as
> middle management here. They remind me and prod me when I need to do
> something. Without them, I'd be reporting direct to the board, and that
> doesn't scale.
<GRIN>. That doesn't necessarily have to change. I don't believe we
even have to change the format of the report if we don't want to. We
can have multiple projects reporting via a single consolodated report if
we want to!
>
> I think I see what you're saying though - it's not the sub-projects that
> are failing, it's the PMC members in XML that are failing to keep an
> overview on all the projects. Unfortunately that might once again come
> down to picking tuits off trees. :-/
>
> I guess there's no easy answers to this.
:<.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On 4 Dec 2003, at 10:40, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> So if we make AxKit (for example) a TLP, then you can *almost* keep
> doing things the way you are now. You would have to appoint a chair
> and PMC of your own (probably just formalising a group you already
> have) and report directly to the board. Even that we might be able to
> do as we do today - everyone reporting in a combined report once a
> quarter.
>
> The difference would be that *the right people* - i.e. yourselves -
> have the responsibility of reviewing your own code and releases.
> Given you are already doing that, it seems like a win-win to me :>.
>
> Other than that - you can change as much as you want. With the
> federation approach, we can all keep working together (if we so
> desire) within the XML web-site and mailing lists, so nothing changes
> there, and all us little projects can help each other out with this
> infrastructure stuff :>.
I guess I would come back with the fact that I *like* the XML PMC as
middle management here. They remind me and prod me when I need to do
something. Without them, I'd be reporting direct to the board, and that
doesn't scale.
I think I see what you're saying though - it's not the sub-projects
that are failing, it's the PMC members in XML that are failing to keep
an overview on all the projects. Unfortunately that might once again
come down to picking tuits off trees. :-/
I guess there's no easy answers to this.
Matt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au>.
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> I worry a little that we're changing things that won't help anything. If
> there's lack of oversight right now, changing the group structure won't
> help attain more oversight. These are small projects here in XML land,
> and people only have a finite amount of time to devote to them. Making
> projects like AxKit the equivalent of a TLP within a cluster of other
> TLPs won't change the way AxKit is run.
Your last sentence is absolutely spot on the mark. But it's actually
the point why the federation might be the right approach. As I read
things, many (not all) of the XML projects are actually doing their own
internal oversite in much the way a PMC is expected to do oversite of a
TLP. I.e. reviewing code commits, planning code changes, approving
releases etc.
The problem is not with what you are doing inside the sub-project, the
problem is what we are doing inside the PMC to validate it. Under the
bylaws it doesn't matter that the sub-project is doing everything
perfectly. The PMC has to validate it. (It's all around legal oversite
and liability as I understand it.)
So if we make AxKit (for example) a TLP, then you can *almost* keep
doing things the way you are now. You would have to appoint a chair and
PMC of your own (probably just formalising a group you already have) and
report directly to the board. Even that we might be able to do as we do
today - everyone reporting in a combined report once a quarter.
The difference would be that *the right people* - i.e. yourselves - have
the responsibility of reviewing your own code and releases. Given you
are already doing that, it seems like a win-win to me :>.
Other than that - you can change as much as you want. With the
federation approach, we can all keep working together (if we so desire)
within the XML web-site and mailing lists, so nothing changes there, and
all us little projects can help each other out with this infrastructure
stuff :>.
>
> More tuits after you pluck them from the trees might :-)
>
> Maybe a "Simon Says" system could help. If we want to do a release we
> have to ask, like asking for a new committer. It sounds kind of anal,
> but then so are the ASF legal requirements (for a reason - I don't mean
> "anal" in an insulting way).
>
> I do admit to not feeling very close to the problems occurring here, so
> take what I say with a big pinch of salt.
Not at all! I tend to agree that adding new structures isn't
necessarily going to solve the problem. But formalising what we
currently have might.
Effectively we are simply removing a level of middle-management and
letting people get on with what it is they want to do.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On 3 Dec 2003, at 10:23, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Well, a bit of time has gone by. I thought I'd raise this again and
> see where we were.
>
> Would be interested in people's thoughts on the idea below. If we
> were to go down this path, we would need to put a transition plan in
> place to make it all work.
>
> Would also be interested in whether people have been following the
> idea of PPMCs in the Incubator. In essence, each sub-project has it's
> own PMC (the PPMC) which is made up of the key players in the
> sub-project. Also in the PPMC are all the members of the PMC. The
> latter are there purely to provide oversite - i.e. ensure that
> decisions are being made appropriately and in the Apache style.
>
> Might be adaptable to the XML project.
>
> Thoughts? Ideally we want to get something agreed for the December
> board meeting. I'm not convinced we will manage that, but we should
> have some kind of progress report.
I worry a little that we're changing things that won't help anything.
If there's lack of oversight right now, changing the group structure
won't help attain more oversight. These are small projects here in XML
land, and people only have a finite amount of time to devote to them.
Making projects like AxKit the equivalent of a TLP within a cluster of
other TLPs won't change the way AxKit is run.
More tuits after you pluck them from the trees might :-)
Maybe a "Simon Says" system could help. If we want to do a release we
have to ask, like asking for a new committer. It sounds kind of anal,
but then so are the ASF legal requirements (for a reason - I don't mean
"anal" in an insulting way).
I do admit to not feeling very close to the problems occurring here, so
take what I say with a big pinch of salt.
Matt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au>.
Glen Mazza wrote:
> --- Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Would also be interested in whether people have been
>>following the idea
>>of PPMCs in the Incubator.
>
>
> Couldn't find the thread--what does the PPMC acronym
> stand for? Also, are the specific oversight
> requirements of Apache board available online
> somewhere? It might be easier to determine the
> correct path to go once everyone is aware of what
> needs to be done.
PPMC = Practice PMC. Basically the group that will become the PMC when
the project comes out of incubation.
>
>
>>In essence, each
>>sub-project has it's own
>>PMC (the PPMC) which is made up of the key players
>>in the sub-project.
>
>
> But wasn't the Apache board's original concern that a
> subproject's committers, by themselves, are not
> sufficient to ensure quality of work? We should be
> careful that a subset of the same people, even if they
> are the "key players", will alleviate those concerns.
No - very important point! The board's concern was that the PMC, the
legally responsible entity, wasn't doing enough to ensure the quality of
the work. There was never a comment in any way on how well the
individual sub-projects were doing quality control.
So it may that each project is doing everything perfectly. We just have
to find a way to either get that level of visibility in the PMC or
remove the middle layer that is adding no value and give each
sub-project the ability to drive its own destiny (as they are doing
already :>).
>
>
>
>>Also in the PPMC are all the members of the PMC.
>>The latter are there
>>purely to provide oversite - i.e. ensure that
>>decisions are being made
>>appropriately and in the Apache style.
>>
>
>
> But I thought the reason for moving to subproject
> PPMC's to begin with was that the XML PMC members did
> *not* have the time to do subproject oversight at the
> granularity that the Apache board wanted.
>
> How will available time for the XML PMC members to do
> this oversight work materialize as a result of them
> joining the PPMCs?
>
A fair call - and my main niggle with this approach for XML.
> My general caution would be that XML Apache should be
> careful not to make any organizational changes if
> those changes won't satisfy the board's needs. In
> particular, if the requirements are simply too
> time-consuming no matter how you restructure things,
> it would probably be better to work on that problem
> first before considering PPMC's.
Yup. It's why I'm leaning more towards the federation idea. Each
project just does what it does today, but does so within the framework
of the foundation.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight]
Posted by Glen Mazza <gr...@yahoo.com>.
--- Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Would also be interested in whether people have been
> following the idea
> of PPMCs in the Incubator.
Couldn't find the thread--what does the PPMC acronym
stand for? Also, are the specific oversight
requirements of Apache board available online
somewhere? It might be easier to determine the
correct path to go once everyone is aware of what
needs to be done.
> In essence, each
> sub-project has it's own
> PMC (the PPMC) which is made up of the key players
> in the sub-project.
But wasn't the Apache board's original concern that a
subproject's committers, by themselves, are not
sufficient to ensure quality of work? We should be
careful that a subset of the same people, even if they
are the "key players", will alleviate those concerns.
> Also in the PPMC are all the members of the PMC.
> The latter are there
> purely to provide oversite - i.e. ensure that
> decisions are being made
> appropriately and in the Apache style.
>
But I thought the reason for moving to subproject
PPMC's to begin with was that the XML PMC members did
*not* have the time to do subproject oversight at the
granularity that the Apache board wanted.
How will available time for the XML PMC members to do
this oversight work materialize as a result of them
joining the PPMCs?
My general caution would be that XML Apache should be
careful not to make any organizational changes if
those changes won't satisfy the board's needs. In
particular, if the requirements are simply too
time-consuming no matter how you restructure things,
it would probably be better to work on that problem
first before considering PPMC's.
Glen Mazza
Apache FOP Team
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org