XML Graphics: draft charter, draft resolution update, items to discuss

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>]

I'm glad we get some wind back into the Batik project. This makes this
whole process a lot easier (at least emotionally).

As promised, although again with some delay, I've found time to prepare
the draft charter. It's available for discussion at [1]. I've
highlighted two points that we need to discuss. Basically, I've modified
the Xerces draft and adjusted it (thanks to the Xerces people. I hope
you don't mind.) The draft resolution [2] is updated with an additional
point that the Xerces people have added to their draft (Transfer of
responsibilities from XML to XML graphics).

The Xerces people put all their active committers automatically into the
PMC. So question number one: Should we do that, too? I don't think this
is a bad idea. What do you people think about this and what are the
arguments for and against?

Question number two is about commit rights. I guess we will keep a
separate set of committers for Batik and FOP and will create a common
space available to all committers when it comes to developing joint
components (like the PDF and PS transcoders). Is everybody ok with this
or should we discuss merging the set of committers the same way that the
Xerces draft outlines (see [4], chapter 8.2)?

Please, if anyone has anything to add or modify please do so directly in
the draft. The document is under version control so we will see what's
modified. Please continue discussion on general@xml.apache.org. I ask
every Batik and FOP committer who hasn't already done so to subscribe to
this mailing list.

What remains to do?
- Decide on open points (see above)
- Raise any concerns about the current course of action.
- Finalize both the resolution and charter (although the latter is not a
prerequisite for the PMC to be created AFAIK)
- Propose candidates for the chair (and vote on one)
- Fill in the names of the initial PMC and its chair into the board
resolution draft.
- Present the proposal to the board (after a positive vote on the whole
thing).

Let's get this over with within the next couple of weeks.

[1] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/XMLGraphicsPMCDraftCharter
[2] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/XMLGraphicsPMCDraftResolution
[3] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/XMLGraphicsPMCDiscussion
[4] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/XercesCharterDiscussion

Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org

Re: XML Graphics: draft charter, draft resolution update, items to discuss

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>]

> TODO Sort this out! Jeremias, what problems in particular concern you here?

It's about the question I posted earlier:
On 27.06.2004 15:28:02 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Question number two is about commit rights. I guess we will keep a
> separate set of committers for Batik and FOP and will create a common
> space available to all committers when it comes to developing joint
> components (like the PDF and PS transcoders). Is everybody ok with this
> or should we discuss merging the set of committers the same way that the
> Xerces draft outlines (see [4], chapter 8.2)?

I took the Xerces draft and modified it. Chapter 8.2 basically says
right now that all FOP committers will get write access (technically,
AVAIL-File) to the Batik code repository and vice versa. But they are
only allowed to modify code from (sub)projects where they are elected
committers. Take Jakarta Commons. I'm a JC committer and can
(theoretically) modify the whole of the respository but am only allowed
to modify the "io" part of it. My big problem is finding a good
formulation of this part.

BTW, thanks for improving my mission description. That's where my
English usually reaches its limits. I'm not very good at things like
that.

I'll try to help address the questions you raised soon. You made good
observations.

On 28.06.2004 05:03:38 Peter B. West wrote:
> I've suggested some changes on the charter wiki.  They do not take 
> account of Cliff's recent suggestion.
> 
> > [1] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/XMLGraphicsPMCDraftCharter



Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Re: XML Graphics: draft charter, draft resolution update, items to discuss

[Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.nl>]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 01:03:38PM +1000, Peter B. West wrote:
> Jeremias et at,
> 
> I've suggested some changes on the charter wiki.  They do not take 
> account of Cliff's recent suggestion.
> 
> >[1] 
> >http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/XMLGraphicsPMCDraftCharter

Two suggestions from my part.

Re Charter 2.1, the reason of existence of Apache XML Graphics: I
think here the difference between both subprojects becomes
apparent. Both have a different reason of existence. My suggestion:

2.1. Apache XML Graphics exists to promote the availability of
graphical rendering and viewing software for XML-based formats. This
has two components:

- An implementation of the W3C XSL-FO Recommendation, which renders an
abstract layout description in terms of Formatting Objects in a
concrete layout in existing page description languages.

- An implementation of the W3C SVG Recommendation, which renders SVG
graphical information on existing graphical rendering platforms.

[This explains why the transcoders were developed by FOP.]

Re Potentially problematic points

> FOP has recently voted in new committers who may have contributed too
> little yet (in the view of some) to already become committers. This
> was primarily due the fact that a lot of old FOP comitters became
> inactive during the last two years and some of the FOP committers
> wanted to help "reignite" the project. Although Batik seems to have
> similar problems, they haven't taken similar steps. If this is a
> problem for the Batik people, especially since the common components
> will be accessible to FOP as well as Batik committers, we'd like the
> Batik people to speak up.

I do not think that was the (only) reason to vote in certain
committers despite the fact that they had not contributed much
code. There is a gap between contributors and committers. There is no
recognized role for possible team members who contribute in other ways
than writing code, although we all know that such contributions are
important for projects with an established user base. I think there is
no such role in all of Apache; if there were, the role could be added
to the charter.

Regards, Simon

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Re: XML Graphics: draft charter, draft resolution update, items to discuss

["Peter B. West" <pb...@tpg.com.au>]

Jeremias et at,

I've suggested some changes on the charter wiki.  They do not take 
account of Cliff's recent suggestion.

> [1] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/XMLGraphicsPMCDraftCharter

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: XML Graphics: draft charter, draft resolution update, items to discuss

[Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>]

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> I'm glad we get some wind back into the Batik project. This makes this
> whole process a lot easier (at least emotionally).

[..]

> The Xerces people put all their active committers automatically into the
> PMC. So question number one: Should we do that, too? I don't think this
> is a bad idea. What do you people think about this and what are the
> arguments for and against?

I think it makes sense that all active and willing committers
are on the PMC (and I think it's like this on most other projects)

> Question number two is about commit rights. I guess we will keep a
> separate set of committers for Batik and FOP and will create a common
> space available to all committers when it comes to developing joint
> components (like the PDF and PS transcoders). Is everybody ok with this

+1

[..]

> What remains to do?
> - Decide on open points (see above)
> - Raise any concerns about the current course of action.
> - Finalize both the resolution and charter (although the latter is not a
> prerequisite for the PMC to be created AFAIK)
> - Propose candidates for the chair (and vote on one)

IIRC the PMC chair is voted by the PMC members so we first need the PMC ...

> - Fill in the names of the initial PMC and its chair into the board
> resolution draft.
> - Present the proposal to the board (after a positive vote on the whole
> thing).
> 
> Let's get this over with within the next couple of weeks.

+1

Christian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Re: XML Graphics: draft charter, draft resolution update, items to discuss

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>]

Yes, I wanted you to update the charter itself. At first glance, most of
it looks good. It'll take me some more time to go into every detail, but
I want to get the resolution over with, first.

On 28.06.2004 22:58:53 Clay Leeds wrote:
> Speaking of which, I made some updates to the charter last night. (When 
> you invited us to 'review' it ourselves, I thought you wanted us to 
> update the CHARTER itself). Most of the updates are minor, and clarify 
> a couple of things (def of committer, Batik & FOP as examples of XML 
> Graphics Subprojects)... I hope the updates were useful!



Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Re: XML Graphics: draft charter, draft resolution update, items to discuss

[Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>]

On Jun 28, 2004, at 1:37 PM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Thank you, Cliff. This sounds like a very good idea. A lot better than
> my current approach. Actually, this has the advantage of speeding 
> things
> up a bit and we could start the vote for the resolution almost
> immediately. So if nobody objects, I will try to scrape together some
> time this week to do this, unless someone beats me to it. :-) After 
> all,
> we don't already need the charter right now, but I am thankful that
> people take their time to add their comments. I hope you don't mind if 
> I
> don't manage to work through all of it this evening.
>
> Jeremias Maerki

Speaking of which, I made some updates to the charter last night. (When 
you invited us to 'review' it ourselves, I thought you wanted us to 
update the CHARTER itself). Most of the updates are minor, and clarify 
a couple of things (def of committer, Batik & FOP as examples of XML 
Graphics Subprojects)... I hope the updates were useful!

Web Maestro Clay


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Re: XML Graphics: draft charter, draft resolution update, items to discuss

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>]

Thank you, Cliff. This sounds like a very good idea. A lot better than
my current approach. Actually, this has the advantage of speeding things
up a bit and we could start the vote for the resolution almost
immediately. So if nobody objects, I will try to scrape together some
time this week to do this, unless someone beats me to it. :-) After all,
we don't already need the charter right now, but I am thankful that
people take their time to add their comments. I hope you don't mind if I
don't manage to work through all of it this evening.


On 28.06.2004 02:07:41 Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote on Sunday, June 27, 2004 6:28 AM:
> 
> > The Xerces people put all their active committers automatically into
> > the 
> > PMC. So question number one: Should we do that, too? I don't think
> > this 
> > is a bad idea. What do you people think about this and what are the
> > arguments for and against?
> 
> If you're interested in another approach...in the XMLBeans vote on
> the proposed resolution and PMC chair, I included an option for the
> committer to choose to become part of the PMC.  This meant that people
> who didn't vote at all weren't part of the PMC, and that people who 
> didn't want to be part of the PMC could passively decline.  I felt it 
> was important for a clearly intentional choice to take on the 
> responsibility of being on the PMC.  This method can also serve to
> naturally filter out committers who have not been very active 
> (unless they make a conscious act to renew their activity).  Of course,
> anyone missed could always be voted into the PMC at a later time, 
> depending on the established charter.
> 
> Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there in case you find any
> merit in that approach.


Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org