You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org> on 2002/11/17 03:15:59 UTC
[PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
To the Members of the Apache Board:
===================================
On the 20 September 2002, an open debate on the subject of
reorganization was initiated within Apache under the reorg list. This
triggered subsequent discussions under the Jakarta Avalon sub-project,
involving the active developer community, the Jakarta PMC, members of
the Apache Board, and other interested parties. On the 10 November a
draft proposal concerning a recommendation to the Board for the
formation of an Avalon PMC was posted and subsequent discussed. This
led to a vote by the Avalon committers on the 14 November, the result of
which was as follows - yes 9, abstain 0, no 0.
Points raised during the discussion process that the Board may whish to
comment on include the following:
Escalation
----------
Unlike the classic PMC formation resolutions, this
recommendation deals with the escalation of an existing
sub-project currently within the framework of the Jakarta
PMC. The recommendation includes specific language
facilitating the migration of the sub-project content
from the Jakarta PMC to an Avalon PMC and transfer of
responsibilities.
Scope and Charter
-----------------
The proposed recommendations call for the establishment of
the Avalon PMC with responsibility for the creation and
maintenance of software related to component and service
management. I would like to note that there is consensus
across the proposed members of the PMC to further qualify
this scope under a detailed charter. I would also like to
note that the scope statement does not cover a substantial
amount of current Avalon content. This contradiction is
balanced by wording in the resolution calling for
rationalization of the project content.
The principal threads related to the proposal, the subsequent vote, and
vote result notification can be found on the archives listed here:
[PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103691454800002&r=1&w=2
[VOTE] Avalon PMC
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103723205600006&r=1&w=2
[VOTE-RESULT] Avalon PMC
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103749242226882&w=2
In conclusion, the proposed resolution that I would like to place before
the board on behalf of the Avalon community is presented below.
Proposal for the formation of an Avalon PMC
===========================================
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in
the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with
the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software related to component and service
management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Avalon PMC", be and
hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
for the creation and maintenance of software related to
component and service management, based on software licensed
to the Foundation; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Avalon" be and
hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve
at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the
Avalon PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
Avalon PMC; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
Nicola Ken Barozzi
Stephen McConnell
Leo Sutic
Leo Simons
Paul Hammant
Marcus Crafter
Carsten Ziegeler
Pete Royal
Berin Loritsch
Peter Donald
Jeff Turner
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Nicola Ken Barozzi
be and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
successor is appointed; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
Avalon subproject; and be it further
RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Jakarta
Avalon sub-project and encumbered upon the Jakarta PMC are
hereafter discharged.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leif Mortenson wrote:
>Leo Simons wrote:
>
>
>
>>According to the time schedule set your vote is not currently part of
>>the proposal sent to the board. I think they'll read and take it into
>>account anyway; you might wish to e-mail the board directly to make
>>sure.
>>
>>
>>
>Understood, but the vote count is only 8 committers (Peter Royal had not
>voted).
>That seems way to low to be telling the board that there was consensus
>on the Avalon team for the creation of the PMC.
>
>
Lief:
The vote count was correct - the error concerned the analysis I put
together on the breakout of participation and engagement relative to
Paul's statistics. Here is a referece to the vote count notification:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103749242226882&w=2
Cheers, Steve.
>Cheers,
>Leif
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 17:22, Leif Mortenson wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
> >hmmm. I believe the board chose to get involved based on comments
> >regarding avalon that were made on other mailing lists. Not so sure.
> >Greg Stein's post:
> >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103682529522761&w=2
> >
> Ok, I agree with what Greg said. But he emphasized the need to avoid
> branching and
> to make a goal of the PMC be getting the team to start working together
> with the
> common goal of a release. He even suggested merging all of the various CVS
> repositories back together to "help to create that 'single community'
> concept."
> The talk now is of branching Phoenix off into a separate Committer group
> all together.
> I don't see how that would really solve the problems however as Phoenix
> is built
> on top of Avalon. If there were any incompatible changes made to Avalon
> that would
> affect Phoenix. Phoenix members would therefor still have to be heavily
> involved
> in Avalon.
Again, I totally agree.
Note a PMC basically should have little to nothing to say about
something like this (other than "sad you feel it has to be this way").
If the people that develop phoenix want to take phoenix elsewhere, they
are free to do so (always have been, always will be. part of how aapche
works).
> >>I will not claim to have had read every single one of the posts on this
> >>subject over the
> >>past few weeks. But the general idea of stricter rules = more harmony =
> >>better product
> >>is false.
> >>
> >agreed. The proposal on the table here is not about stricter rules or
> >more harmony or better products. There's a lot of stuff it is not about,
> >I won't repeat all my thoughts on this; I have attempted a summary here:
> >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103704193526633&w=2
> >
> Ok, I had only made it part way into that mail before being called off
> to a meeting. Sorry.
nevermind. There's a lot of stuff on the table. It's much better to read
half and voice concerns than not voice concerns at all!
<snip/>
> All in all I agree with what you said in the above post. It sounds like
> the PMC would
> in theory enable the new Avalon board to steer the direction of the
> project as a whole.
> But my question is how will that be any different from now. The same
> members who
> are fighting about those directions are all on the new PMC board (as
> they should be)
> I agree with the need to clean things up and refocus the goals of
> Avalon. But that can
> be done now.
the cleaning up, the refocusing...99% of that is rather technical stuff
that the community as a whole faces, and will have to face regardless of
an Avalon PMC setup.
> If the goal of the PMC is to allow us to create an avolon.apache.org
> domain and become
> a top level project. Then as Greg said, a PMC is not necessary to do that.
yup.
> >You can see the proposal on the table as falling down into two bits:
> >
> >- Setting up an Avalon PMC. This is mostly about stuff like legal
> >responsibility and protection, apache wide reorganization, etc.
> >
> Do we need protection that is different that what the current Apache
> agreement
> offers?
I am not a lawyer.....this is not legal advice.....it may not be
accurate...
real short answer: yes.
this is a long story I'm not the best to explain about (you may want to
search for some posts by Roy Fielding on this topic on the
community@apache and/or reorg@apache lists for more information).
Basically a PMC should vote on a release of software, is then legally
responsible, and is then legally protected by the ASF. The Jakarta PMC
does not vote on our releases, hence individuals are legally
accountable. The ASF does not legally protect individuals. If there is a
breach of MS patents in avalon software, the 'thing' that will likely
get sued atm will be all the individuals.
Legal safety (ie not having to worry beyond "put this text in your
sourcefiles") is one of the big benefits apache offers to software
communities, and it would be real nice to have as much of it as
possible.
> >- modifying the scope of the Avalon project. I think my earlier e-mail
> >on this on November 10th outlines how the proposal wording could be
> >interpreted regarding a modified scope:
> >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103695259224131&w=2
> >The reason this scope modification is part of the proposal is that a
> >resolution for a top level project to handle all of avalon its current
> >(de-facto) scope is probably not so smart (it seems just about everyone
> >doesn't like the current de-facto avalon scope).
> >
> In this message you start by saying that the vote should be pushed back
> a month.
> That would have been good to gain a consensus amongst all of the committers.
> Overall I agree now that creating a PMC would be a good idea. But I am
> more than
> a little worried at the pace at which is being pushed forward amidst all
> of the
> problems that are going on right now.
me too. I think we'll be alright, though. There won't be that much
changing if the resolution is accepted, and we can change things again
if it seems like a good idea.
Think about how many times the Jakarta PMC did something involving
avalon directly. Not very often if you ask me. Any new Avalon PMC will
probably be a little more active (for example, the PMC will vote on
software releases, rather than the committers; this is the way it is
supposed to work; I'd also hope that such a PMC would do some of things
Greg suggested), but mostly, think "background".
For sure, when we wrap up these discussions, I'm going to really slow
down for a week or so and do nothing but eat pretzels, watch the
simpsons, and do some hacking :D
> >your vote is a valid vote on a proposal that needs majority approval. I
> >think it is very desirable to have consensus approval rather than just
> >majority, so your vote is very important to me. This e-mail is to
> >outline why I have voted +1 on the Avalon PMC proposal while further
> >agreeing to just about everything you say in this e-mail.
> >
> After reading up on what your goals are with the PMC. I am closer to a
> +0 now. But
> I would still like to see all involved slow down a bit. I have not seen
> favorable
> comments from Peter or Berin on this yet. And it seems like they should
> be agreeing
> before this was made final.
> As for Peter and Berin wanting to be on the board of the PMC, that doesn't
> necessarily mean that they agree with it. They would just need to be,
> and certainly
> have every right to be there when and if it is formed.
again, I mostly agree. I think we won't be going too quickly from here
on regardless of what happens. The vote that was held now will mean next
to nothing in practice (unless we get sued) until we actually start
making changes. Before we do any of that, there should be ample
opportunity for everyone with an interest to form and express thoughts
and opinions.
> >According to the time schedule set your vote is not currently part of
> >the proposal sent to the board. I think they'll read and take it into
> >account anyway; you might wish to e-mail the board directly to make
> >sure.
> >
> Understood, but the vote count is only 8 committers (Peter Royal had not
> voted).
> That seems way to low to be telling the board that there was consensus
> on the Avalon
> team for the creation of the PMC.
I can see why it does seem like that. However, that's what the jakarta
project guidelines say we had (before you posted your message), so that
is what we told the board (and everyone else).
<yawn/>, <rub area="temples"/>, goodnight,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>hmmm. I believe the board chose to get involved based on comments
>regarding avalon that were made on other mailing lists. Not so sure.
>Greg Stein's post:
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103682529522761&w=2
>
Ok, I agree with what Greg said. But he emphasized the need to avoid
branching and
to make a goal of the PMC be getting the team to start working together
with the
common goal of a release. He even suggested merging all of the various CVS
repositories back together to "help to create that 'single community'
concept."
The talk now is of branching Phoenix off into a separate Committer group
all together.
I don't see how that would really solve the problems however as Phoenix
is built
on top of Avalon. If there were any incompatible changes made to Avalon
that would
affect Phoenix. Phoenix members would therefor still have to be heavily
involved
in Avalon.
>>I will not claim to have had read every single one of the posts on this
>>subject over the
>>past few weeks. But the general idea of stricter rules = more harmony =
>>better product
>>is false.
>>
>>
>agreed. The proposal on the table here is not about stricter rules or
>more harmony or better products. There's a lot of stuff it is not about,
>I won't repeat all my thoughts on this; I have attempted a summary here:
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103704193526633&w=2
>
Ok, I had only made it part way into that mail before being called off
to a meeting. Sorry.
It would have been nice to have had a summary of what was being voted on
posted with
the vote request. Most of the PMC threads either came from feudal
threads or turned
into one.
All in all I agree with what you said in the above post. It sounds like
the PMC would
in theory enable the new Avalon board to steer the direction of the
project as a whole.
But my question is how will that be any different from now. The same
members who
are fighting about those directions are all on the new PMC board (as
they should be)
I agree with the need to clean things up and refocus the goals of
Avalon. But that can
be done now.
If the goal of the PMC is to allow us to create an avolon.apache.org
domain and become
a top level project. Then as Greg said, a PMC is not necessary to do that.
>You can see the proposal on the table as falling down into two bits:
>
>- Setting up an Avalon PMC. This is mostly about stuff like legal
>responsibility and protection, apache wide reorganization, etc.
>
Do we need protection that is different that what the current Apache
agreement
offers?
>- modifying the scope of the Avalon project. I think my earlier e-mail
>on this on November 10th outlines how the proposal wording could be
>interpreted regarding a modified scope:
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103695259224131&w=2
>The reason this scope modification is part of the proposal is that a
>resolution for a top level project to handle all of avalon its current
>(de-facto) scope is probably not so smart (it seems just about everyone
>doesn't like the current de-facto avalon scope).
>
In this message you start by saying that the vote should be pushed back
a month.
That would have been good to gain a consensus amongst all of the committers.
Overall I agree now that creating a PMC would be a good idea. But I am
more than
a little worried at the pace at which is being pushed forward amidst all
of the
problems that are going on right now.
>your vote is a valid vote on a proposal that needs majority approval. I
>think it is very desirable to have consensus approval rather than just
>majority, so your vote is very important to me. This e-mail is to
>outline why I have voted +1 on the Avalon PMC proposal while further
>agreeing to just about everything you say in this e-mail.
>
After reading up on what your goals are with the PMC. I am closer to a
+0 now. But
I would still like to see all involved slow down a bit. I have not seen
favorable
comments from Peter or Berin on this yet. And it seems like they should
be agreeing
before this was made final.
As for Peter and Berin wanting to be on the board of the PMC, that doesn't
necessarily mean that they agree with it. They would just need to be,
and certainly
have every right to be there when and if it is formed.
>According to the time schedule set your vote is not currently part of
>the proposal sent to the board. I think they'll read and take it into
>account anyway; you might wish to e-mail the board directly to make
>sure.
>
Understood, but the vote count is only 8 committers (Peter Royal had not
voted).
That seems way to low to be telling the board that there was consensus
on the Avalon
team for the creation of the PMC.
Cheers,
Leif
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 14:31, Leif Mortenson wrote:
> Well I for one didn't vote because I took the weekend off...
> This vote did not include Peter, Pete or Berin, not to mention a lot
> of others.
yup.
> I have not had the energy to keep up with all of the feuding going on
> lately, but the vote did seem to be rather one sided.
You mean there are 9 people on one side of a feud who voted +1, and x
people on the other side, that did not vote? I don't think that is the
case. I don't consider myself on a side of a feud, for one.
> I don't personally feel that the answer to all this is to pass a bunch
> of strict new rules.
agreed. (Note the proposal is not about new rules.)
> The real problem is that a select few simply refuse to play nicely with
> others.
agreed. (Note this proposal is not about solving the problems in the
avalon community.)
> Suggesting an idea and then complaining and complaining until everyone
> gives up and lets
> you do it is not "working together". All this does is cause other
> members of the group
> to stop reading all posts by said members.
yup. Bit of a general problem probably only avoided by having the people
with different ideas persevere, too.
> There has been a lot of bashing of Peter lately about him not working
> together and giving
> -1s without explanations. But from what I have seen the majority of
> those cases have
> been after a lot of the above mentioned complaining. I personally would
> have grown quite
> tired of it all as well and applaud Peter for his staying power.
agreed. Peter has received way more than his share of unfair comments
and I'm very glad he hasn't left as a result of that.
> Peter has been on this project for a very long time. He has consistently
> put forward a lot
> of effort at working with the community to help evolve Avalon in such a
> way as to
> provide a consistent migration path for users. Anything which would
> weaken his position
> or push him out of the Avalon group would be very bad for the group as a
> whole.
definitely. Paul made some stats that clearly show how big of an
influence Peter is for avalon (this proposal is not about weaking
Peter's position or pushing him out of avalon).
> This whole attempt to go over the heads of the member of the group and
> get the Apache
> board involved in this squabble just looks like more of the same
> complaining.
hmmm. I believe the board chose to get involved based on comments
regarding avalon that were made on other mailing lists. Not so sure.
Greg Stein's post:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103682529522761&w=2
> I've had ideas shot down here and else where as well. Having them shot
> down always made
> me go back and reevaluate my ideas. The result was always a much better
> solution.
yep.
> I will not claim to have had read every single one of the posts on this
> subject over the
> past few weeks. But the general idea of stricter rules = more harmony =
> better product
> is false.
agreed. The proposal on the table here is not about stricter rules or
more harmony or better products. There's a lot of stuff it is not about,
I won't repeat all my thoughts on this; I have attempted a summary here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103704193526633&w=2
You can see the proposal on the table as falling down into two bits:
- Setting up an Avalon PMC. This is mostly about stuff like legal
responsibility and protection, apache-wide reorganization, etc
- modifying the scope of the Avalon project. I think my earlier e-mail
on this on November 10th outlines how the proposal wording could be
interpreted regarding a modified scope:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103695259224131&w=2
The reason this scope modification is part of the proposal is that a
resolution for a top-level project to handle all of avalon its current
(de-facto) scope is probably not so smart (it seems just about everyone
doesn't like the current de-facto avalon scope).
> So take it as you will but
your vote is a valid vote on a proposal that needs majority approval. I
think it is very desirable to have consensus approval rather than just
majority, so your vote is very important to me. This e-mail is to
outline why I have voted +1 on the Avalon PMC proposal while further
agreeing to just about everything you say in this e-mail.
> I vote:
>
> -1
According to the time schedule set your vote is not currently part of
the proposal sent to the board. I think they'll read and take it into
account anyway; you might wish to e-mail the board directly to make
sure.
> What is the answer to this then? That is a difficult question. But a few
> people
> Growing Up a bit would go a long way to making working on Avalon an
> enjoyable
> experience again.
I totally agree (I think everyone is pretty tired of all the 'political'
stuff right now). Rest assured, regardless of what happens with the
whole top-level and PMC thing, Growing Up will still be necessary.
cheers,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com>.
Well I for one didn't vote because I took the weekend off...
This vote did not include Peter, Pete or Berin, not to mention a lot
of others.
I have not had the energy to keep up with all of the feuding going on
lately,
but the vote did seem to be rather one sided.
I don't personally feel that the answer to all this is to pass a bunch
of strict new rules.
The real problem is that a select few simply refuse to play nicely with
others. For the
life of me I can not figure out why they stay in the group as they show
no interest
in trying to work together to come up with the best possible product.
Suggesting an idea and then complaining and complaining until everyone
gives up and lets
you do it is not "working together". All this does is cause other
members of the group
to stop reading all posts by said members.
There has been a lot of bashing of Peter lately about him not working
together and giving
-1s without explanations. But from what I have seen the majority of
those cases have
been after a lot of the above mentioned complaining. I personally would
have grown quite
tired of it all as well and applaud Peter for his staying power.
Peter has been on this project for a very long time. He has consistently
put forward a lot
of effort at working with the community to help evolve Avalon in such a
way as to
provide a consistent migration path for users. Anything which would
weaken his position
or push him out of the Avalon group would be very bad for the group as a
whole.
This whole attempt to go over the heads of the member of the group and
get the Apache
board involved in this squabble just looks like more of the same
complaining.
I've had ideas shot down here and else where as well. Having them shot
down always made
me go back and reevaluate my ideas. The result was always a much better
solution.
I will not claim to have had read every single one of the posts on this
subject over the
past few weeks. But the general idea of stricter rules = more harmony =
better product
is false. So take it as you will but I vote:
-1
What is the answer to this then? That is a difficult question. But a few
people
Growing Up a bit would go a long way to making working on Avalon an
enjoyable
experience again.
Cheers,
Leif
Leo Simons wrote:
>I think the vote regarding the Avalon PMC proposal was carried out in
>accordance with the jakarta project guidelines and can be marked as
>valid under those guidelines. I think that the requirement for consensus
>approval (3 binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes) has been
>satisfied, as has been the requirement for majority approval (3 binding
>+1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes), as has been the requirement
>for lazy approval (no -1 votes).
>
>Thus, I can only come to the conclusion that the proposal has been
>approved.
>
>It could be seen as worrying that a high percentage of active committer
>chose not to vote. There can be many reasons why an active committer
>chooses not to vote on a proposal; I think for anyone to make
>assumptions about those reasons is a bad idea, especially since it is
>apparent different people make different assumptions.
>
>For example, my explanation would again be different from those already
>given: either a non-voting committer was unable to vote (because he/she
>was underway to ApacheCon, for example), deliberately chose not to vote
>(for example, I can imagine a long-time emeritus, choosing not to
>participate at all), was happy with the direction the vote was going in
>(consensus approval), or did not want to commit to helping out make the
>changes (as voting +1 also means volunteering to help make the changes).
>
>Add up all the different reasons already given at this point and it
>seems to become impossible to make any kind of general statement about
>the reasons for the large ratio of non-voting committers. I would
>suggest we do away with further discussion on this proposal and simply
>accept the outcome.
>
>best regards,
>
>- Leo Simons
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by gs...@lyra.org.
In article <10...@lsd.student.utwente.nl>, "Leo Simons"
<le...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think the vote regarding the Avalon PMC proposal was carried out in
> accordance with the jakarta project guidelines and can be marked as
> valid under those guidelines. I think that the requirement for consensus
> approval (3 binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes) has been
> satisfied, as has been the requirement for majority approval (3 binding
> +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes), as has been the requirement
> for lazy approval (no -1 votes).
Rules come into play when there are disagreements about what has been
built as consensus. Those rules can be used to twist and subvert the
interests of the community ("oh, but you didn't follow Rule X, so that
isn't valid!") or they can be used in a very helpful way.
But however you want to slice it: the people who were interested enough to
participate in the vote *unanimously* voted for asking the Board to set up
the Avalon PMC. Who the heck cares what the Jakarta rules are? I can tell
you the Board doesn't... it cares what the community said. As one of the
members of that Board, I see great community support for a new PMC. That
is *more* than enough to put the resolution before the Board for
discussion and voting.
Cheers,
-g
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
I think the vote regarding the Avalon PMC proposal was carried out in
accordance with the jakarta project guidelines and can be marked as
valid under those guidelines. I think that the requirement for consensus
approval (3 binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes) has been
satisfied, as has been the requirement for majority approval (3 binding
+1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes), as has been the requirement
for lazy approval (no -1 votes).
Thus, I can only come to the conclusion that the proposal has been
approved.
It could be seen as worrying that a high percentage of active committer
chose not to vote. There can be many reasons why an active committer
chooses not to vote on a proposal; I think for anyone to make
assumptions about those reasons is a bad idea, especially since it is
apparent different people make different assumptions.
For example, my explanation would again be different from those already
given: either a non-voting committer was unable to vote (because he/she
was underway to ApacheCon, for example), deliberately chose not to vote
(for example, I can imagine a long-time emeritus, choosing not to
participate at all), was happy with the direction the vote was going in
(consensus approval), or did not want to commit to helping out make the
changes (as voting +1 also means volunteering to help make the changes).
Add up all the different reasons already given at this point and it
seems to become impossible to make any kind of general statement about
the reasons for the large ratio of non-voting committers. I would
suggest we do away with further discussion on this proposal and simply
accept the outcome.
best regards,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by gs...@apache.org.
In article <3D...@apache.org>, "Stephen McConnell"
<mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> Let me summarize the numbers for you concerning the level of
> participation:
>
> Area Committers PMC Engagement Vote Engagement
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Total 31 11 (35%) 9 (29%)
>...
> I'm not qualified to interpret these results, suffice to say that I'm
> confident that a silent majority have expressed an opinion.
IMO, if somebody is going to ask to be on the PMC, then they are providing
an implicit +1 to the proposal.
Second, people only tend to vote when they see things going "the wrong
way." If nine people have sent in a +1 and *none* against, and Joe Lurker
also feels "+1", then will he actually bother to send in a vote? Nah...
why bother? The vote is progressing fine. On the other hand, if he disagreed
with the apparent direction, then oh yah.. they'll vote to try and ensure it
swings properly".
Third, a missing vote is only that. A missing vote. That isn't even an
abstention! If people aren't voting, then they aren't participating, and
it doesn't even matter what they think. You have to participate if you
want to affect the direction. In this case, the people who are interested
and participating have overwhelming supported the construction of a PMC
for Avalon.
Cheers,
-g
--
gstein@apache.org ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by kiss the sun and walk on air <pe...@pobox.com>.
On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 10:53 AM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Sorry about that - the vote count submitted to the list and the board
> was correct - the error only concerns the notes on representation and
> participation. In doing a quick pass on the statistics for the
> relevant avalon sub-projects I made a mistake with respect to yourself
> (cut and past error) which effected the engagement numbers. Numbers
> concerning the participation on PMC remain unchanged.
I know, no problem :)
-pete
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Peter Royal wrote:
> On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 05:19 AM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>> Pete Royal - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
>
>
> for the record, I did not vote. that changes all the percentages
> downward.
Sorry about that - the vote count submitted to the list and the board
was correct - the error only concerns the notes on representation and
participation. In doing a quick pass on the statistics for the relevant
avalon sub-projects I made a mistake with respect to yourself (cut and
past error) which effected the engagement numbers. Numbers concerning
the participation on PMC remain unchanged.
Area Committers PMC Engagement Vote Engagement
---------------------------------------------------------
Total 31 11 (35%) 9 (29%) (final tally
correct - unchanged)
Framework 11 7 (90%) 5 (45%) (correct from 6 to 5)
Excalibur 12 11 (91%) 7 (58%) (correct from 7 to 6)
Phoenix/etc 8 5 (86%) 1 (13%) (corrected from 2
to 1)
Apps 11 7 (52%) 4 (36%) (corrected from 4
to 3)
Cheers, Steve.
>
> -pete
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 05:19 AM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Pete Royal - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
for the record, I did not vote. that changes all the percentages
downward.
-pete
--
peter royal -> proyal@apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Hello Pete:
I read with interest you email. I am pleased to see that you raised
questions concerning the level of representation and participation in
the vote. This provided me with the incentive to do a more complete
analysis. I am confident that you will find my conclusion interesting.
Peter Donald wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:15, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>To the Members of the Apache Board:
>>===================================
>>
>>On the 20 September 2002, an open debate on the subject of
>>reorganization was initiated within Apache under the reorg list. This
>>triggered subsequent discussions under the Jakarta Avalon sub-project,
>>involving the active developer community, the Jakarta PMC, members of
>>the Apache Board, and other interested parties. On the 10 November a
>>draft proposal concerning a recommendation to the Board for the
>>formation of an Avalon PMC was posted and subsequent discussed. This
>>led to a vote by the Avalon committers on the 14 November, the result of
>>which was as follows - yes 9, abstain 0, no 0.
>>
>
>I would interpret the results remarkable different from that. A high
>percentage of active contributors chose not to vote. Without much
hassle I
>can easily name 9 who participate in development of Avalon who have
not voted
>for your proposal.
>
The vote captured the participation of a one-third of the registered
committers. If we take into consideration that committers that have
actively opted into the PMC, and have not opposed the vote, and if we
compare that against the active committers based on Paul's review of
activity over the last 8 months (based on email frequency and volume),
we can conclude that the vote, the level of engagement, and the level of
support is significant and representative.
Consolidating Paul's most active and quality list for the
avalon-framework over the last 8 months, only 1 committer out of the 11
jakarta-avalon core chose not to engage in the process - which indicates
that for the framework, we achieved a 90% engagement in the discussions
and representation on the PMC, and a 54% participation of the framework
community to the vote (and if you had chosen to vote, that number would
have been 63%).
Nicola - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Pete Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Berin - opted in on the PMC
Paul H - opted in on the PMC
Leo Simons - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Stephen - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Pete Royal - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Eung-ju, did not register a vote
Jeff - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Lief - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Leo Sutric, opted in on the PMC, voted +1
If we review the Excalibur sub-project (including Fortress and Merlin,
combining volume and quality of email based on Paul's revised numbers),
the names are slightly different but the results are similar (reflecting
the strong commonality between the Excalibur development and the
framework). Again, 1 committer out of 12 chose not to participate to the
process, we see a 91% participation to the PMC and a 58% participation
to the vote. Should you have chosen to register a vote, that number
would have been 66%.
Pete Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Lief - opted on the PMC, did not register a vote
Berin - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Paul H - opted in on the PMC
Jeff - opted on the PMC, voted +1
Stephen - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Carsten - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Marcus - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Pete Royal - opted on the PMC, voted +1
Mircea, did not register a vote
Leo Simons - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Nicola - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
If we look at the Phoenix/Cornerstone community with Avalon, we see a
community of approximately 8 people, 5 on the PMC, and 2 registering a
vote of support and no votes opposed. In terms of representation on the
Avalon PMC, we see a majority of Phoenix/Cornerstone contributors on the
management committee. We also see a disappointing numbers in terms of
community engagement to the voting process, perhaps representative of
the closed nature of the Phoenix/Cornerstone community to the
participation of the members of the broader Avalon community.
Peter Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Paul H - opted in on the PMC
Pete Royal - opted on the PMC, voted +1
Eung-ju, did not register a vote
Lief - opted on the PMC, did not register a vote
Jeff - opted on the PMC, voted +1
Huw, did not register a vote
Rana, did not register a vote
Finally, if you we look at the Avalon Apps activities (within which the
total number of messages is approximately equivalent to the Merlin
subproject in Excalibur according to Paul's undated numbers) we are
looking at the community most potentially threatened by reorganization.
Paul H.- opted in on the PMC
Stephen - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Rana, did not register a vote
Pete Royal - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Berin - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Pete Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Eung-ju, did not register a vote
Leo Simons - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Huw, did not register a vote
Vinay, did not register a vote
Jeff - opted on the PMC, voted +1
From the above, we can see that from the active developer community of
11 people, 7 are proposed members of the PMC, representing 52% of the
community, and a level of vote participation of 36%. Given the
"incubator" nature of the Avalon-Apps sub-project, I would suggest that
while the level of engagement to the voting process is the lowest of the
all of the Avalon sub-projects, the results are not surprising as the
content is the furthest form the core of Avalon. However, please note
that the PMC representation remains at more than half of the active
community.
>
>Some of these people are the same ones who would be ejected from Avalon
>according to the scope you decided on.
>
I would like to respond on two points here.
Firstly, I think your usage of the word "eject" bay be inappropriate and
may lead to unnecessary concern. We have already discussed across
several threads the question of reorganization. This subject has been
raised in the context of a consensus within Avalon for reorganization.
I think I have already stated that I personally see an obligation on the
members of the proposed PMC to facilitate and enable successful
migration of these projects, and in particular, leveraging the Apache
Commons and Apache Incubator communities in the process.
The second point is possibly a matter of incorrect grammar. You
suggested that the scope was decided by myself. This is incorrect. A
more correct statement would be that the scope statement was "proposed"
by myself (and was subsequently debated). No alternative scope
statement was proposed. Messages were submitted to the list analyzing
the scope statement and the potential impact on the Avalon community.
Another message (from you) suggested that the scope was too broad. At
the end of the discussion process, nobody had proposed an alternative
scope statement, however, there was consensus that the scope, while
representative of Avalon, needed further qualification. This was
further discussed in terms of the need for a detailed charter. Notes
reflecting this were included in the proposal posted to the board and
remain consistent with the proposed resolution.
>Others have a different reason not to
>vote. Many of those who did not vote had expressed dissatisfaction
with what
>you decided in the [PROPOSAL] thread.
>
If I recall correctly there were approximately 0 no votes. This seems
to suggest to me that a certain level of tolerance for change existed
amongst those members who chose not to vote. After all, the
registration of a -1 vote is not all together a difficult thing to do.
All in all, we have witnessed a resounding YES buy the community to move
forward with a united Avalon.
>However rather than try to reach
>consensus with the group you chose to go with your own vision instead.
>
Just a small note - the proposal was prepared as a result of discussion
here and on related Apache list within which Avalon was raised as an
example. Many of the emails we in fact a result of comments and
observations that you raised. Following this, discussion continued on
the Avalon list and subsequently resulted in the preparation of a
proposal. The proposal was prepared in order to reflect what I viewed
to be the majority interest and would appear that majority of the active
Avalon committers have chosen to endorse that position.
>
>Thus the low level of involvement in the vote - even though it is a
>significant issue for our evolution.
>
Let me summarize the numbers for you concerning the level of participation:
Area Committers PMC Engagement Vote Engagement
---------------------------------------------------------
Total 31 11 (35%) 9 (29%)
Framework 11 7 (90%) 6 (54%)
Excalibur 12 11 (91%) 7 (58%)
Phoenix/etc 8 5 (86%) 2 (25%)
Apps 11 7 (52%) 4 (32%)
I'm not qualified to interpret these results, suffice to say that I'm
confident that a silent majority have expressed an opinion.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
[RE-POSTING] - Includes corrections to Avalon sub-project statistics
on vote engagement following reciept of notification of an error in the
Avalon sub-project statistics posted previously.
* totals for the vote are unchanged
* level of representation is unchanged
* level of participation to the vote process are reduced
Cheers, Steve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Pete:
I read with interest you email. I am pleased to see that you raised
questions concerning the level of representation and participation in
the vote. This provided me with the incentive to do a more complete
analysis. I am confident that you will find my conclusion interesting.
Peter Donald wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:15, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>To the Members of the Apache Board:
>>===================================
>>
>>On the 20 September 2002, an open debate on the subject of
>>reorganization was initiated within Apache under the reorg list.
>>This triggered subsequent discussions under the Jakarta Avalon
>>sub-project, involving the active developer community, the Jakarta
>>PMC, members of the Apache Board, and other interested parties.
>>On the 10 November a draft proposal concerning a recommendation to
>>the Board for the formation of an Avalon PMC was posted and
>>subsequent discussed. This led to a vote by the Avalon committers
>>on the 14 November, the result of which was as follows - yes 9,
>>abstain 0, no 0.
>>
>
>I would interpret the results remarkable different from that. A high
>percentage of active contributors chose not to vote. Without much
>hassle I can easily name 9 who participate in development of Avalon
>who have not voted for your proposal.
>
The vote captured the participation of a one-third of the registered
committers. If we take into consideration that committers that have
actively opted into the PMC, and have not opposed the vote, and if we
compare that against the active committers based on Paul's review of
activity over the last 8 months (based on email frequency and volume),
we can conclude that the vote, the level of engagement, and the level of
support is significant and representative.
Consolidating Paul's most active and quality list for the
avalon-framework over the last 8 months, only 1 committer out of the 11
jakarta-avalon core chose not to engage in the process - which indicates
that for the framework, we achieved a 90% engagement in the discussions
and representation on the PMC, and a 45% participation of the framework
community to the vote (and if you had chosen to vote, that number would
have been 54%).
Nicola - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Pete Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Berin - opted in on the PMC
Paul H - opted in on the PMC
Leo Simons - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Stephen - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Pete Royal - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Eung-ju, did not register a vote
Jeff - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Lief - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Leo Sutric, opted in on the PMC, voted +1
If we review the Excalibur sub-project (including Fortress and Merlin,
combining volume and quality of email based on Paul's revised numbers),
the names are slightly different but the results are similar (reflecting
the strong commonality between the Excalibur development and the
framework). Again, 1 committer out of 12 chose not to participate to the
process, we see a 91% participation to the PMC and a 50% participation
to the vote. Should you have chosen to register a vote, that number
would have been 58%.
Pete Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Lief - opted on the PMC, did not register a vote
Berin - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Paul H - opted in on the PMC
Jeff - opted on the PMC, voted +1
Stephen - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Carsten - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Marcus - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Pete Royal - opted on the PMC, did not register a vote
Mircea, did not register a vote
Leo Simons - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Nicola - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
If we look at the Phoenix/Cornerstone community with Avalon, we see a
community of approximately 8 people, 5 on the PMC, and 1 registering a
vote of support and no votes opposed. In terms of representation on the
Avalon PMC, we see a majority of Phoenix/Cornerstone contributors on the
management committee. We also see a disappointing numbers in terms of
community engagement to the voting process, perhaps representative of
the closed nature of the Phoenix/Cornerstone community to the
participation of the members of the broader Avalon community.
Peter Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Paul H - opted in on the PMC
Pete Royal - opted on the PMC, did not register a vote
Eung-ju, did not register a vote
Lief - opted on the PMC, did not register a vote
Jeff - opted on the PMC, voted +1
Huw, did not register a vote
Rana, did not register a vote
Finally, if you we look at the Avalon Apps activities (within which the
total number of messages is approximately equivalent to the Merlin
subproject in Excalibur according to Paul's undated numbers) we are
looking at the community most potentially threatened by reorganization.
Paul H.- opted in on the PMC
Stephen - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Rana, did not register a vote
Pete Royal - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Berin - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Pete Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
Eung-ju, did not register a vote
Leo Simons - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
Huw, did not register a vote
Vinay, did not register a vote
Jeff - opted on the PMC, voted +1
From the above, we can see that from the active developer community of
11 people, 7 are proposed members of the PMC, representing 52% of the
community, and a level of vote participation of 27%. Given the
"incubator" nature of the Avalon-Apps sub-project, I would suggest that
while the level of engagement to the voting process is the lowest of the
all of the Avalon sub-projects, the results are not surprising as the
content is the furthest form the core of Avalon. However, please note
that the PMC representation remains at more than half of the active
community.
>
>Some of these people are the same ones who would be ejected from Avalon
>according to the scope you decided on.
>
I would like to respond on two points here.
Firstly, I think your usage of the word "eject" may be inappropriate and
may lead to unnecessary concern. We have already discussed across
several threads the question of reorganization. This subject has been
raised in the context of a consensus within Avalon for reorganization.
I think I have already stated that I personally see an obligation on the
members of the proposed PMC to facilitate and enable successful
migration of these projects, and in particular, leveraging the Apache
Commons and Apache Incubator communities in the process.
The second point is possibly a matter of incorrect grammar. You
suggested that the scope was decided by myself. This is incorrect. A
more correct statement would be that the scope statement was "proposed"
by myself (and was subsequently debated). No alternative scope
statement was proposed. Messages were submitted to the list analyzing
the scope statement and the potential impact on the Avalon community.
Another message (from you) suggested that the scope was too broad. At
the end of the discussion process, nobody had proposed an alternative
scope statement, however, there was consensus that the scope, while
representative of Avalon, needed further qualification. This was
further discussed in terms of the need for a detailed charter. Notes
reflecting this were included in the proposal posted to the board and
remain consistent with the proposed resolution.
>Others have a different reason not to
>vote. Many of those who did not vote had expressed dissatisfaction
>with what you decided in the [PROPOSAL] thread.
>
If I recall correctly there were approximately 0 no votes. This seems
to suggest to me that a certain level of tolerance for change existed
amongst those members who chose not to vote. After all, the
registration of a -1 vote is not all together a difficult thing to do.
All in all, we have witnessed a resounding YES buy the community to move
forward with a united Avalon.
>However rather than try to reach
>consensus with the group you chose to go with your own vision instead.
>
Just a small note - the proposal was prepared as a result of discussion
here and on related Apache list within which Avalon was raised as an
example. Many of the emails we in fact a result of comments and
observations that you raised. Following this, discussion continued on
the Avalon list and subsequently resulted in the preparation of a
proposal. The proposal was prepared in order to reflect what I viewed
to be the majority interest and would appear that majority of the active
Avalon committers have chosen to endorse that position.
>
>Thus the low level of involvement in the vote - even though it is a
>significant issue for our evolution.
>
Let me summarize the numbers for you concerning the level of participation:
Area Committers PMC Engagement Vote Engagement
---------------------------------------------------------
Total 31 11 (35%) 9 (29%) (unchanged)
Framework 11 7 (90%) 5 (45%) (updated from 6 to 5)
Excalibur 12 11 (91%) 7 (58%) (updated from 7 to 6)
Phoenix/etc 8 5 (86%) 1 (13%) (updated from 2 to 1)
Apps 11 7 (52%) 4 (36%) (updated from 4 to 3)
I'm not qualified to interpret these results, suffice to say that I'm
confident that a silent majority have expressed an opinion.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I would interpret the results remarkable different from that. A high
>>> percentage of active contributors chose not to vote. Without much
>>> hassle I
>>> can easily name 9 who participate in development of Avalon who have
>>> not voted
>>> for your proposal.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Disagreement with a proposal is a reason to vote against it; apathy is a
>> reason to abstain. Neither are a reason to not even participate.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> It had absolutely nothing to do with apathy. It had to do with such a
> narrow voting window. I tried to
> be able to be free to vote, but unfortunately I couldn't. What about
> a real length of time like a week
> instead of at least a week?
>
Berin:
I don't think Brian is referring to yourself. You made it clear
earlier this month that your level of engagement was reducing (a
much more passive role if I remember correctly) and I think its
understood my everyone here that there is a conflict you have with
respect to the time you have available. I think Brian is addressing
critisism raised by Pete on the question of the level of
participation, given that Pete chose not to register a vote.
In addition, Greg raised a valid points in his email concerning
participation and a bearing this has on implicit endorecement.
> IMO, if somebody is going to ask to be on the PMC, then they are
> providing an implicit +1 to the proposal.
The complete email is here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103767180621197&w=2
Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> -------------------- -------------------------
> Introducing NetZero Long Distance
> 1st month Free!
> Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
>
>
>>I would interpret the results remarkable different from that. A high
>>percentage of active contributors chose not to vote. Without much hassle I
>>can easily name 9 who participate in development of Avalon who have not voted
>>for your proposal.
>>
>>
>
>Disagreement with a proposal is a reason to vote against it; apathy is a
>reason to abstain. Neither are a reason to not even participate.
>
>
>
It had absolutely nothing to do with apathy. It had to do with such a
narrow voting window. I tried to
be able to be free to vote, but unfortunately I couldn't. What about a
real length of time like a week
instead of at least a week?
---------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
1st month Free!
Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
> I would interpret the results remarkable different from that. A high
> percentage of active contributors chose not to vote. Without much hassle I
> can easily name 9 who participate in development of Avalon who have not voted
> for your proposal.
Disagreement with a proposal is a reason to vote against it; apathy is a
reason to abstain. Neither are a reason to not even participate.
Brian
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:15, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> To the Members of the Apache Board:
> ===================================
>
> On the 20 September 2002, an open debate on the subject of
> reorganization was initiated within Apache under the reorg list. This
> triggered subsequent discussions under the Jakarta Avalon sub-project,
> involving the active developer community, the Jakarta PMC, members of
> the Apache Board, and other interested parties. On the 10 November a
> draft proposal concerning a recommendation to the Board for the
> formation of an Avalon PMC was posted and subsequent discussed. This
> led to a vote by the Avalon committers on the 14 November, the result of
> which was as follows - yes 9, abstain 0, no 0.
I would interpret the results remarkable different from that. A high
percentage of active contributors chose not to vote. Without much hassle I
can easily name 9 who participate in development of Avalon who have not voted
for your proposal.
Some of these people are the same ones who would be ejected from Avalon
according to the scope you decided on. Others have a different reason not to
vote. Many of those who did not vote had expressed dissatisfaction with what
you decided in the [PROPOSAL] thread. However rather than try to reach
consensus with the group you chose to go with your own vision instead.
Thus the low level of involvement in the vote - even though it is a
significant issue for our evolution.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
----------------------------------------
Whatever you do will be insignificant,
but it is very important that you do it.
--Gandhi
----------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by gs...@apache.org.
In article <3D...@apache.org>, "Stephen McConnell"
<mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> In conclusion, the proposed resolution that I would like to place before
> the board on behalf of the Avalon community is presented below.
I have placed this resolution on the agenda for our Board meeting on Monday.
Thanks, everyone!
Cheers,
-g
--
gstein@apache.org ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
>Should this not have been sent by Nicola to us and the board?
>
Not according to the plan - please see the following message from the
thread concerning the Avalon PMC Draft Resolution in which I undertook
to submit the proposal to the board together with supporting notes.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103711650226076&w=2
Cheers, Steve.
> --- Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org> wrote: >
>
>
>>To the Members of the Apache Board:
>>===================================
>>
>>On the 20 September 2002, an open debate on the subject of
>>reorganization was initiated within Apache under the reorg list. This
>>triggered subsequent discussions under the Jakarta Avalon sub-project,
>>involving the active developer community, the Jakarta PMC, members of
>>the Apache Board, and other interested parties. On the 10 November a
>>draft proposal concerning a recommendation to the Board for the
>>formation of an Avalon PMC was posted and subsequent discussed. This
>>led to a vote by the Avalon committers on the 14 November, the result of
>>which was as follows - yes 9, abstain 0, no 0.
>>
>>Points raised during the discussion process that the Board may whish to
>>comment on include the following:
>>
>> Escalation
>> ----------
>>
>> Unlike the classic PMC formation resolutions, this
>> recommendation deals with the escalation of an existing
>> sub-project currently within the framework of the Jakarta
>> PMC. The recommendation includes specific language
>> facilitating the migration of the sub-project content
>> from the Jakarta PMC to an Avalon PMC and transfer of
>> responsibilities.
>>
>> Scope and Charter
>> -----------------
>>
>> The proposed recommendations call for the establishment of
>> the Avalon PMC with responsibility for the creation and
>> maintenance of software related to component and service
>> management. I would like to note that there is consensus
>> across the proposed members of the PMC to further qualify
>> this scope under a detailed charter. I would also like to
>> note that the scope statement does not cover a substantial
>> amount of current Avalon content. This contradiction is
>> balanced by wording in the resolution calling for
>> rationalization of the project content.
>>
>>The principal threads related to the proposal, the subsequent vote, and
>>vote result notification can be found on the archives listed here:
>>
>> [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103691454800002&r=1&w=2
>>
>> [VOTE] Avalon PMC
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103723205600006&r=1&w=2
>>
>> [VOTE-RESULT] Avalon PMC
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103749242226882&w=2
>>
>>In conclusion, the proposed resolution that I would like to place before
>>the board on behalf of the Avalon community is presented below.
>>
>>Proposal for the formation of an Avalon PMC
>>===========================================
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in
>> the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with
>> the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
>> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
>> open-source software related to component and service
>> management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
>>
>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
>> Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Avalon PMC", be and
>> hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
>> and be it further
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to
>> component and service management, based on software licensed
>> to the Foundation; and be it further
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Avalon" be and
>> hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve
>> at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the
>> Avalon PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
>> of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
>> Avalon PMC; and be it further
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
>> are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
>>
>> Nicola Ken Barozzi
>> Stephen McConnell
>> Leo Sutic
>> Leo Simons
>> Paul Hammant
>> Marcus Crafter
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> Pete Royal
>> Berin Loritsch
>> Peter Donald
>> Jeff Turner
>>
>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Nicola Ken Barozzi
>> be and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
>> to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
>> Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
>> resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
>> successor is appointed; and be it further
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
>> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
>> development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
>> and be it further
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
>> with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
>> Avalon subproject; and be it further
>>
>> RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Jakarta
>> Avalon sub-project and encumbered upon the Jakarta PMC are
>> hereafter discharged.
>>
>>
>>Cheers, Steve.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Stephen J. McConnell
>>
>>OSM SARL
>>digital products for a global economy
>>mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
>>http://www.osm.net
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Everything you'll ever need on one web page
>from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
>http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 06:09, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Why did we choose Nicola?
he received the most public support. There has not been that much
discussion on this. It is the board that makes these decisions
regardless. Would you like background behind why I voiced support? I
think it best if discussions like these are kept private for the sake of
all involved.
I think we should be rotating the position chair, in which case it
should not be much of an issue.
IIUC, the primary responsibility of the chair is sending reports to the
board unless there is a really big problem the PMC can't solve (in which
case the chair acts as officer and not as chair). I expect that no-one
who was nominated would overstep boundaries like this.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@apache.org]
>
> Paul Hammant wrote:
>
> >Should this not have been sent by Nicola to us and the
> board? Did he
> >send you the words to forward?
> >
> >-ph
> >
>
> Why did we choose Nicola?
I voted Nicola. If anyone want me to provide reasons
for and against the people willing to be nominated
chair I will be more than happy to do so, but unless
there's a need for explanation I won't bore you
with my ramblings.
> I would have much preferred either of the
> Leo's, me, Peter, Paul, or even Leif or Marcus.
The chair will be, I believe, rotating among members.
There was strong support for that idea. If it's not,
then I think I just found my first issue for the PMC.
> The reason is that some of us have the history and the time
> invested in this project, or have demonstrated a proven
> track record of committing to existing projects and
> supporting them. I prefer someone with a track record of
> cross "project" support.
A good reason for the rotating chair concept.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
>Should this not have been sent by Nicola to us and the board? Did he send you the words to
>forward?
>
>-ph
>
Why did we choose Nicola? I would have much preferred either of the
Leo's, me, Peter, Paul, or even Leif or Marcus.
The reason is that some of us have the history and the time invested in
this project, or have demonstrated a proven
track record of committing to existing projects and supporting them. I
prefer someone with a track record of cross
"project" support.
---------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
1st month Free!
Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
Should this not have been sent by Nicola to us and the board? Did he send you the words to
forward?
-ph
--- Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org> wrote: >
> To the Members of the Apache Board:
> ===================================
>
> On the 20 September 2002, an open debate on the subject of
> reorganization was initiated within Apache under the reorg list. This
> triggered subsequent discussions under the Jakarta Avalon sub-project,
> involving the active developer community, the Jakarta PMC, members of
> the Apache Board, and other interested parties. On the 10 November a
> draft proposal concerning a recommendation to the Board for the
> formation of an Avalon PMC was posted and subsequent discussed. This
> led to a vote by the Avalon committers on the 14 November, the result of
> which was as follows - yes 9, abstain 0, no 0.
>
> Points raised during the discussion process that the Board may whish to
> comment on include the following:
>
> Escalation
> ----------
>
> Unlike the classic PMC formation resolutions, this
> recommendation deals with the escalation of an existing
> sub-project currently within the framework of the Jakarta
> PMC. The recommendation includes specific language
> facilitating the migration of the sub-project content
> from the Jakarta PMC to an Avalon PMC and transfer of
> responsibilities.
>
> Scope and Charter
> -----------------
>
> The proposed recommendations call for the establishment of
> the Avalon PMC with responsibility for the creation and
> maintenance of software related to component and service
> management. I would like to note that there is consensus
> across the proposed members of the PMC to further qualify
> this scope under a detailed charter. I would also like to
> note that the scope statement does not cover a substantial
> amount of current Avalon content. This contradiction is
> balanced by wording in the resolution calling for
> rationalization of the project content.
>
> The principal threads related to the proposal, the subsequent vote, and
> vote result notification can be found on the archives listed here:
>
> [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103691454800002&r=1&w=2
>
> [VOTE] Avalon PMC
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103723205600006&r=1&w=2
>
> [VOTE-RESULT] Avalon PMC
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103749242226882&w=2
>
> In conclusion, the proposed resolution that I would like to place before
> the board on behalf of the Avalon community is presented below.
>
> Proposal for the formation of an Avalon PMC
> ===========================================
>
> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in
> the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with
> the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
> open-source software related to component and service
> management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
> Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Avalon PMC", be and
> hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
> and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
> for the creation and maintenance of software related to
> component and service management, based on software licensed
> to the Foundation; and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Avalon" be and
> hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve
> at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the
> Avalon PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
> of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
> Avalon PMC; and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
> are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
>
> Nicola Ken Barozzi
> Stephen McConnell
> Leo Sutic
> Leo Simons
> Paul Hammant
> Marcus Crafter
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Pete Royal
> Berin Loritsch
> Peter Donald
> Jeff Turner
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Nicola Ken Barozzi
> be and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
> to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
> Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
> resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
> successor is appointed; and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
> development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
> and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
> Avalon subproject; and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Jakarta
> Avalon sub-project and encumbered upon the Jakarta PMC are
> hereafter discharged.
>
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
> --
>
> Stephen J. McConnell
>
> OSM SARL
> digital products for a global economy
> mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
> http://www.osm.net
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>