You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> on 2005/11/22 01:38:20 UTC
Democracy? [was: About joining JSR 279 and 280]
Geir, I believe you missed the meat of my proposal which was a
proposal to make the JCP process at Apache democratic. It is my
opinion that the process for JCP involvement at Apache is really a
dictatorship and not democratic. Now, I get the feeling this is a
benevolent dictatorship, and to be crystal clear I am not saying
anything negative you or the current process. I would like to see
the process changed to pure democracy, and to achieve this I think we
need to change two areas, openness and voting.
Openness
* Publicly document the process to join an EG
* Publicly document the requirements of an person representing Apache
* Publicly document the people representing Apache on the various
specs
* All administrative communication between Apache and the JCP
should be copied to this (or the private) list
* An EG representative should give quarterly reports to this list
Voting
* This list should discuss all votes on the EC and decide how
Apache will cast it's vote
* This list should vote on who will represent apache on the EGs
* This list should discuss and vote to propose Apache sponsored
specifications
* This list should on a yearly basis propose to the board a
individual that we would like to represent Apache in the EC (of
course the board has the choice to choose whom ever they want, but we
should offer the opinion of this group)
To me this is what Apache is all about, democracy.
-dain
On Nov 20, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2005, at 3:05 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> +1 I would have thought this is how things already worked. It
>> seems like the Apache Way... of course I have a few tweaks :)
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> 1) No JSR should be applied for until it has been decided on this
>>> list
>>> who is going to represent Apache.
>>>
>>> 2) When the person is selected via the standard voting practices
>>> then
>>> that person contacts the spec lead. Again if this person doesn't
>>> have
>>> the motivation to contact the spec lead and get things moving
>>> then we
>>> should not participate.
>>
>> I would suggest that this list be copied on all "administrative"
>> communication with the spec leads or the EC. That way we have an
>> official record of what is going on. Further, if we don't already
>> have one, I would like to have a JCP website at Apache that
>> details our policies joining a EG and lists the people
>> representing Apache on the various specs. Sometimes, I want to
>> ask for a feature to be added to a spec, but don't know who is
>> representing Apache.
>
> No problem there. I've had the website planned, and this is a good
> kick.
>
>>
>>> 3) I think it would be fair say that one individual cannot possibly
>>> handle more then one JSR. I can barely keep up with JSR 277.
>>
>> I'm not sure on this one. Some specs don't have much volume and
>> others do. This is kind of like saying you can be heavily
>> involved in more than one Apache project. Of course, I don't want
>> an Apache rep that is so overwhelmed that they aren't effectively
>> representing us.
>
> I think that it's up to individuals who volunteer if they want to
> participate in more than one. I see no problem with it. If there
> is a dormant rep, then certainly a person who wants to be active
> should take over. But without any other person interested, a
> dormant rep is fine. It happens all the time in the JCP.
>
>> Maybe we should ask the rep to create a quarterly report, which we
>> can attache to the board report for this group. If they can't
>> create a paragraph, it is a good sign they aren't involved.
>
> We have to be careful there - I've thought about monthly
> "heartbeat" reports, but we have to be careful about information
> from expert groups getting to public board reports. We have a
> weird situation because our interests in openness need to square
> with our responsibilities to keep EG confidential information
> confidential (this varies EG by EG...)
>
> It's good to see some interest in this area.
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
Re: Democracy? [was: About joining JSR 279 and 280]
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 9, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> That was pre 2.5 though, IIRC.
>
> Yes, but just 2.5 is not enough to enable open source. The spec lead
> has to propose a license that is compatible as well. Sun, Day, and
> (I think) BEA and (maybe) IBM are the only ones that do that now.
> We should be voting "no" when the terms of use are not satisfactory.
Terms of use of the RI? The specs all come out under the 2.5+ spec
license, IIRC. I'll go back and check.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Democracy? [was: About joining JSR 279 and 280]
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Dec 9, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> That was pre 2.5 though, IIRC.
Yes, but just 2.5 is not enough to enable open source. The spec lead
has to propose a license that is compatible as well. Sun, Day, and
(I think) BEA and (maybe) IBM are the only ones that do that now.
We should be voting "no" when the terms of use are not satisfactory.
....Roy
Re: Democracy? [was: About joining JSR 279 and 280]
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
That was pre 2.5 though, IIRC.
On Dec 9, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> * This list should discuss all votes on the EC and decide how
>>> Apache will cast it's vote
>>
>> Discussion is certainly good, but the ASF has never in my memory
>> cast a negative vote.
>
> Umm, many times, and we always vote NO on JSRs that cannot be
> implemented
> royalty-free in open source.
>
> ....Roy
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Democracy? [was: About joining JSR 279 and 280]
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> * This list should discuss all votes on the EC and decide how
>> Apache will cast it's vote
>
> Discussion is certainly good, but the ASF has never in my memory
> cast a negative vote.
Umm, many times, and we always vote NO on JSRs that cannot be
implemented
royalty-free in open source.
....Roy
Re: Democracy? [was: About joining JSR 279 and 280]
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Nov 21, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Geir, I believe you missed the meat of my proposal which was a
> proposal to make the JCP process at Apache democratic. It is my
> opinion that the process for JCP involvement at Apache is really a
> dictatorship and not democratic.
I'm not sure that either is a good word. First, the ASF is a
meritocracy. Everyone is entitled to speak their peace, but those
who make decisions are a subset of the entire community, just like in
all ares of the foundation's functioning.
In the case of ASF representation on expert groups, it's really been
very open - at first, anyone who was a member and was interested
could represent the ASF, and now, those who are committers are
eligible. I say "eligible" because I think we need to be careful.
Our participation in the JCP is really about process and community,
and not about technology - the ASF doesn't actually have specific
technology roadmaps as a foundation - we want "a thousand flowers to
bloom". The ability to participate in the technology activities -
namely the expert groups - is a secondary thing for us, and thus
we've formally kept the eligibility under formal approval (by me,
thus far). The reality has been that no one has ever been refused
participation, but we must certainly keep the option of saying no to
someone clearly available.
> Now, I get the feeling this is a benevolent dictatorship, and to
> be crystal clear I am not saying anything negative you or the
> current process.
C'mon. Fool me once...
> I would like to see the process changed to pure democracy, and to
> achieve this I think we need to change two areas, openness and voting.
>
> Openness
> * Publicly document the process to join an EG
> * Publicly document the requirements of an person representing Apache
> * Publicly document the people representing Apache on the various
> specs
> * All administrative communication between Apache and the JCP
> should be copied to this (or the private) list
> * An EG representative should give quarterly reports to this list
These are all good things, and all have been suggested before and are
or should be in process of happening.
>
> Voting
> * This list should discuss all votes on the EC and decide how
> Apache will cast it's vote
Discussion is certainly good, but the ASF has never in my memory cast
a negative vote. I'd also reserve for the VP, JCP the decision on
what the vote should be in the end. The responsibility has been
placed on that person's shoulders.
But sure - I'll start posting the weekly ballot info and if anyone is
interested, we can dig in.
> * This list should vote on who will represent apache on the EGs
This isn't so clear to me what you get out of this It's not obvious
why this list would know better than the specialists working in the
technology area - those volunteering to do the work - about who
should be the rep. Generally, we don't have multiple people wanting
to do it. When we do, I think we should always try for dual/treble/
etc representation to get the most people participating if the EG
will allow it, and if not, the individuals better be mature enough to
work this out themselves, or there's no way they should be on a JCP
expert group.
> * This list should discuss and vote to propose Apache sponsored
> specifications
Well, certainly people should be aware, but why would we ever act as
a gatekeeper preventing people from trying to take their technology
to the JCP? And sponsoring a spec is such a big deal, if anyone
signed up to do the work and do a spec, I'd be the first the bless
them and wish them luck, giving them any support they need. That
said, I'd be the first to try and shut them down if they were giving
the ASF a bad name, but I would consider that an unlikely,
extraordinary situation that the VP, JCP could just deal with.
> * This list should on a yearly basis propose to the board a
> individual that we would like to represent Apache in the EC (of
> course the board has the choice to choose whom ever they want, but
> we should offer the opinion of this group)
This makes little sense to me. It takes a bit of time (about a
year or so) to understand the political dynamics of the JCP enough to
be effective. The JCP is staffed by professional standards-bodies
representatives, and the politics is pretty tough. I think that
there is no upside for the ASF for this happening this way. So no, I
don't think that this should be turned over every year.
geir
> -dain
>
> On Nov 20, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2005, at 3:05 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> +1 I would have thought this is how things already worked. It
>>> seems like the Apache Way... of course I have a few tweaks :)
>>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) No JSR should be applied for until it has been decided on
>>>> this list
>>>> who is going to represent Apache.
>>>>
>>>> 2) When the person is selected via the standard voting practices
>>>> then
>>>> that person contacts the spec lead. Again if this person doesn't
>>>> have
>>>> the motivation to contact the spec lead and get things moving
>>>> then we
>>>> should not participate.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that this list be copied on all "administrative"
>>> communication with the spec leads or the EC. That way we have an
>>> official record of what is going on. Further, if we don't
>>> already have one, I would like to have a JCP website at Apache
>>> that details our policies joining a EG and lists the people
>>> representing Apache on the various specs. Sometimes, I want to
>>> ask for a feature to be added to a spec, but don't know who is
>>> representing Apache.
>>
>> No problem there. I've had the website planned, and this is a
>> good kick.
>>
>>>
>>>> 3) I think it would be fair say that one individual cannot possibly
>>>> handle more then one JSR. I can barely keep up with JSR 277.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure on this one. Some specs don't have much volume and
>>> others do. This is kind of like saying you can be heavily
>>> involved in more than one Apache project. Of course, I don't
>>> want an Apache rep that is so overwhelmed that they aren't
>>> effectively representing us.
>>
>> I think that it's up to individuals who volunteer if they want to
>> participate in more than one. I see no problem with it. If there
>> is a dormant rep, then certainly a person who wants to be active
>> should take over. But without any other person interested, a
>> dormant rep is fine. It happens all the time in the JCP.
>>
>>> Maybe we should ask the rep to create a quarterly report, which
>>> we can attache to the board report for this group. If they can't
>>> create a paragraph, it is a good sign they aren't involved.
>>
>> We have to be careful there - I've thought about monthly
>> "heartbeat" reports, but we have to be careful about information
>> from expert groups getting to public board reports. We have a
>> weird situation because our interests in openness need to square
>> with our responsibilities to keep EG confidential information
>> confidential (this varies EG by EG...)
>>
>> It's good to see some interest in this area.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Democracy? [was: About joining JSR 279 and 280]
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Some more thoughts on this.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Geir, I believe you missed the meat of my proposal which was a proposal
> to make the JCP process at Apache democratic.
Something felt wrong about this word, and when prompted to think about
it I remembered the ASF is meritocratic, not democratic. I think its
probably what you mean anyway, you're just working on the assumption
that everyone here has merit, which seems a fair assumption at this point :)
Meritocracy vs democracy is an interesting distinction when it comes to
something such as this, but what I think it means is:
- all members with appropriate paperwork can participate (as they can
in any ASF project they are interested in, as I understand it)
- committers with proven skills in the relevant areas and with
appropriate paperwork can participate.
This would be the "committers list" of JCP@Apache. Importantly, there
should also be a way for any committer to jump in and learn about and
contribute to "prove" themselves too.
> It is my opinion that the
> process for JCP involvement at Apache is really a dictatorship and not
> democratic. Now, I get the feeling this is a benevolent dictatorship,
> and to be crystal clear I am not saying anything negative you or the
> current process. I would like to see the process changed to pure
> democracy, and to achieve this I think we need to change two areas,
> openness and voting.
In some ways I agree. It is a dictatorship in the respect that it's one
of the few offices not backed by a committee. From
http://www.apache.org/foundation/, I relate the first 4 with the board,
the projects with a PMC, then there is the PRC. The other two: legal
affairs (very new) and JCP are individual positions with no specific
committee, but discussion lists.
I'm sure Geir would argue here that others are welcome to participate as
we are doing here. I think this is just the chicken and egg problem you
would see anywhere. If the process is not documented or open, then you
don't tend to form a community around it.
Does it make sense to set up a PMC-like committee that can share some of
the responsibilities? I'm not exactly sure how the PRC is defined or
operates, but it might be similar. It seems to me that we should have
these lists:
- private. To be discussed only with those under NDA (not necessarily
members, if this is allowed - those that fit the 2 categories I listed
above)
- public. Only committers can subscribe, but a public archive
available. For discussing apache's process, participation and to provide
feedback on JSRs of interest. Kind of like legal-discuss. Would be good
to be as open as possible, without violating the trust of any EG's, so
members of the private group need to be prudent.
- jsrXXX-discuss. One per JSR where requested. Only NDA'd individuals,
but so more Apache people can discuss individual JSRs even if only one
can be on an EG.
>
> Openness
> * Publicly document the process to join an EG
> * Publicly document the requirements of an person representing Apache
> * Publicly document the people representing Apache on the various specs
> * All administrative communication between Apache and the JCP should be
> copied to this (or the private) list
+1 to these. I think we all agree on something like this and just need
to get it started.
> * An EG representative should give quarterly reports to this list
The JCP VP is meant to report to the board in Feb, May, Aug, Nov, though
I'm not aware of whether this happens. Geir, can you shed some light on
this? Anyway, it seems the perfect opportunity to provide feedback and
issues, to the extent possible given that board reports go public after
some time.
> Voting
> * This list should discuss all votes on the EC and decide how Apache
> will cast it's vote
+1
> * This list should vote on who will represent apache on the EGs
An interesting one. Nowhere except the board do we vote one person
against another, nor do we allow self-nomination for votes, which is
what this seems to be about.
In theory I agree - it should be consensus of the community, I just
worry about the mechanics. I think we'd have to wait for the situation
to arise and see how it plays out. I'd find it unlikely that there will
be a lot of contention around a spot if it was discussed openly, and
anyone that easily offended when not selected because another is viewed
as having more merit in that instance, probably doesn't have the stomach
for it anyway :)
> * This list should discuss and vote to propose Apache sponsored
> specifications
+1
> * This list should on a yearly basis propose to the board a individual
> that we would like to represent Apache in the EC (of course the board
> has the choice to choose whom ever they want, but we should offer the
> opinion of this group)
I know this is something that is proposed and sometimes practiced
elsewhere. I'm not really comfortable with it in projects because it
creates unnecessary tension at that time and places more importance than
necessary on the chair. In a project, the chair is just reporting to the
board. They don't have any special powers, require any particular
technical expertise, and they aren't the designated leader of the
project. I feel that if they are doing a good job, the project is happy
with their reports to the board and handling of issues, and the board is
happy with the view of the project, then they should continue on as long
as they feel they have the time and energy.
The Apache EC member is actually quite different, and while they can
(and ideally should?) be the same, I wonder if it should be described as
a separate position to the VP position responsible to the board? I'm
certainly interested to hear more from Geir about what he thinks is
involved in that position and whether that is a fair distinction.
One real concern I have here is, currently, if the representative
decides that there are better things in life and decides to throw in the
towel, then it could be quite difficult to replace them. Does anybody
know enough about the processes, the current issues and relationships to
effectively do this?
Anyway, I hope we can get together at ApacheCon and discuss these things
(or anything else in the mean time). I'm looking forward to it.
Cheers,
Brett