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 2003/06/24 12:22:50 UTC
Updates to charter
Peoples,
Done some fairly major mods to various parts of the charter to try to
accomodate peoples thoughts. Have checked into CVS.
This is starting to get rather big and unwieldy. I wonder if we might
be better off taking the last three sections (and a few other parts) out
of the charter. A lot of this is discussed on the mission/guidelines
section of the web page. Does it really need to be in the charter?
To me a charter should be the basic governance structure of the project.
We can derive everything else separately.
Thoughts? +/-?
Have provided change details below, trying to quickly reference back to
people's e-mails. If I have missed anything let me know.
I am _more_ than happy to put back/re-modify. All comments very welcome.
Cheers,
Berin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From Peter West's comments
- Added terms section
- Provided reference to Incubator
x No change to 5.4 - I don't think we have to state that PMC reps have
to be committers?
- CONTRIBUTORS - Have cut a large portion of this as it doesn't really
appear appropriate in a charter. Should we have a separate page for
this kind of thing?
- COMMITTERS - minor changes made as indicated
- INFRASTRUCTURE - No change. My feeling is that the statement states
what the PMC must do. It so
happens that we leverage the resources provided by infrastructure to
meet this obligation.
- Didn't add anything about procedures - saw this more as an
infrastructure section. Again - should we have a separate page (outside
charter) for this kind of thing?
- DEVELOPMENT PROCESS - Left as is see below.
- SUBPROJECT REQUIREMENTS - Removed GUMP piece. Should we remove the
whole thing?
- ARCHITECTURE - Not sure I agree. My own feeling is that architecture
is actually
appropriate in this instance. However happy to run with majority decision.
Ilene Seelemann
- Removed "CVS" from 8.1b (left as repositories)
- 10.1. I actually kind of like having the "approved in advance" piece
vague like this. Each sub-project can work in with it in whatever way
fits best. If that
means voting for people who are pre-approved then fine. Otherwise this
is really a clause
to deal with problems - if people start disagreeing with what is going
on, this this clause
provides "best practice" that people need to fall back on.
Jeremias Maerki
- CVS removed from entire document
Kip Hampton
- Added words "Where Appropriate" and "Where inter-related" to
paragraph. Weakens
the para slightly, but I think it makes it more in-line with reality.
Neil Graham
- Added some extra paragraphs around COMMITTERS to clarify inactive status.
? Should there be something about removing committers?
Berin Lautenbach
- Modified the voting in of the chair (wasn't realistic before).
- Added a piece to remove PMC members who do not participate in voting
for an extended period of time
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org