You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com> on 2002/12/02 22:12:25 UTC
The organization of xml.apache.org
Hello all,
At ApacheCon I had a number of great discussions with people from all over the ASF. One
of the many topics of discussion was around the organization of the ASF. I'm going to try to
summarize the organization discussion below.
It seems that there are 2 major issues:
1. The ASF has a legal responsibility for oversight of the ASF projects. In order to provide
some degree of legal protection for committers, the ASF needs to demonstrate that
it is providing effective oversight of the projects. Ultimately, this responsibility rests with the
ASF board and is currently implemented via PMCs. However, within the ASF there is wide
variation in the implementation of the PMC concept. In httpd there is a PMC for a single code
base and most of the committers are a part of the PMC. Contrast that with XML and Jakarta
where there is a single (umbrella/container) PMC for many code bases, and a tiny fraction of
the committers are a part of the PMC. There has been a movement in the ASF to move
projects out from under the umbrella PMC's and have them be their own projects. Some people
believe that this will improve the board's visibility into the projects, others believe that this will
create an unmanageable amount of work for the board.
2. The ASF is currently membership-based, non-profit corporation. The legal liability protections
of the corporation apply to the members. In the event of a legal action against one of the committers,
the ASF would attempt to defend the committer, but the automatic liability protection of
the corpration would not apply. At the moment the best way to provide protection to those working
on ASFprojects is via election to membership. There has been some discussion that the ASF needs
to find a better way to provide legal protection for all contributors to projects.
So why am I sending this message?
I feel that the level of oversight that is being provided for the xml.apache.org projects is insufficient.
The ASF does not have the visibility into the projects that it should have, and the projects are not
getting the help/guidance/whatever that they need from the ASF. Something needs to be changed.
There are a number of possible solutions -- not all of them are mutually exclusive:
1. Help any xml.apache.org project that wishes to become a top-level project to do so. Each
top-level project will then have its own PMC which will report directly to the ASF board.
2. Expand the xml.apache.org PMC so that every project has a representative
3. Alter the structure of xml.apache.org to have an "administrative" PMC that takes care of legal type
stuff, and a "technical" PMC that focuses more on techical issues and oversight.
4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
So, let's have a discussion about how to improve the situation. I'd like to hear people's opinions on the
options that I presented above, as well as any other suggestions for improvement.
Please express your opinions!
Ted
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>.
Hi, I didn't reply to the whole list of lists to which this was posted,
but I wanted to see if anyone in the XML-RPC project has a better angle
on this than I do.
What does this all mean in English? This seems to be the tail end of a
long thread from some other list. How is this going to affect the
XML-RPC project?
For example, I would be alarmed to see XML-RPC, Axis, and XML-Security
all get a mandate to become one project or leave Apache.
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
>
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we
> have. But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing
> any physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin
> to phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various
> subprojects. Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged
> to form their own separate projects (or move into incubation).
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
My preference would be that we have a single brand. Apache.
At the moment organizational structure of the foundation is reflected in
the dns's and the project names. I think it would be better to separate
these two issues.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
> >
> > Not to pollute the discussion too much, but I just recently became a
> > part of one xml.apache.org project, and have been a member of the
> > Apache community only about 6 months. Before I got involved, though,
> > I was using both Jakarta and xml.apache.org software for quite a
> > while. To me the xml.apache.org brand was always a "subsidiary brand"
> > of ASF, as was Jakarta. It carries enough weight that I have looked
> > here first when I need a piece of software for a project, and will try
> > an Apache project out before a random Sourceforge one every time.
>
>
> Where I work, Apache is a web server. Jakarta IS Java (or alternatively
> its where you get struts and tomcat). XML.apache.org is where Xerces is
> hidden.
>
> -Andy
>
> >
> > $0.02
> > --
> > Ryan Hoegg
> > ISIS Networks
> > http://www.isisnetworks.net
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> > For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> Not to pollute the discussion too much, but I just recently became a
> part of one xml.apache.org project, and have been a member of the
> Apache community only about 6 months. Before I got involved, though,
> I was using both Jakarta and xml.apache.org software for quite a
> while. To me the xml.apache.org brand was always a "subsidiary brand"
> of ASF, as was Jakarta. It carries enough weight that I have looked
> here first when I need a piece of software for a project, and will try
> an Apache project out before a random Sourceforge one every time.
Where I work, Apache is a web server. Jakarta IS Java (or alternatively
its where you get struts and tomcat). XML.apache.org is where Xerces is
hidden.
-Andy
>
> $0.02
> --
> Ryan Hoegg
> ISIS Networks
> http://www.isisnetworks.net
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
>> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
> the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that... I don't
> think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the tapestry
> guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
> find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
> honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an
> XML.apache.org...
>
> -Andy
Not to pollute the discussion too much, but I just recently became a
part of one xml.apache.org project, and have been a member of the Apache
community only about 6 months. Before I got involved, though, I was
using both Jakarta and xml.apache.org software for quite a while. To me
the xml.apache.org brand was always a "subsidiary brand" of ASF, as was
Jakarta. It carries enough weight that I have looked here first when I
need a piece of software for a project, and will try an Apache project
out before a random Sourceforge one every time.
$0.02
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
>> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
> the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that... I don't
> think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the tapestry
> guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
> find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
> honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an
> XML.apache.org...
>
> -Andy
Not to pollute the discussion too much, but I just recently became a
part of one xml.apache.org project, and have been a member of the Apache
community only about 6 months. Before I got involved, though, I was
using both Jakarta and xml.apache.org software for quite a while. To me
the xml.apache.org brand was always a "subsidiary brand" of ASF, as was
Jakarta. It carries enough weight that I have looked here first when I
need a piece of software for a project, and will try an Apache project
out before a random Sourceforge one every time.
$0.02
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
>> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
> the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that... I don't
> think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the tapestry
> guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
> find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
> honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an
> XML.apache.org...
>
> -Andy
Not to pollute the discussion too much, but I just recently became a
part of one xml.apache.org project, and have been a member of the Apache
community only about 6 months. Before I got involved, though, I was
using both Jakarta and xml.apache.org software for quite a while. To me
the xml.apache.org brand was always a "subsidiary brand" of ASF, as was
Jakarta. It carries enough weight that I have looked here first when I
need a piece of software for a project, and will try an Apache project
out before a random Sourceforge one every time.
$0.02
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
>> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
> the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that... I don't
> think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the tapestry
> guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
> find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
> honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an
> XML.apache.org...
>
> -Andy
Not to pollute the discussion too much, but I just recently became a
part of one xml.apache.org project, and have been a member of the Apache
community only about 6 months. Before I got involved, though, I was
using both Jakarta and xml.apache.org software for quite a while. To me
the xml.apache.org brand was always a "subsidiary brand" of ASF, as was
Jakarta. It carries enough weight that I have looked here first when I
need a piece of software for a project, and will try an Apache project
out before a random Sourceforge one every time.
$0.02
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
>> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
> the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that... I don't
> think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the tapestry
> guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
> find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
> honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an
> XML.apache.org...
>
> -Andy
Not to pollute the discussion too much, but I just recently became a
part of one xml.apache.org project, and have been a member of the Apache
community only about 6 months. Before I got involved, though, I was
using both Jakarta and xml.apache.org software for quite a while. To me
the xml.apache.org brand was always a "subsidiary brand" of ASF, as was
Jakarta. It carries enough weight that I have looked here first when I
need a piece of software for a project, and will try an Apache project
out before a random Sourceforge one every time.
$0.02
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
>> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
> the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that... I don't
> think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the tapestry
> guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
> find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
> honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an
> XML.apache.org...
>
> -Andy
Not to pollute the discussion too much, but I just recently became a
part of one xml.apache.org project, and have been a member of the Apache
community only about 6 months. Before I got involved, though, I was
using both Jakarta and xml.apache.org software for quite a while. To me
the xml.apache.org brand was always a "subsidiary brand" of ASF, as was
Jakarta. It carries enough weight that I have looked here first when I
need a piece of software for a project, and will try an Apache project
out before a random Sourceforge one every time.
$0.02
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
>> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
> the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that... I don't
> think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the tapestry
> guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
> find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
> honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an
> XML.apache.org...
>
> -Andy
Not to pollute the discussion too much, but I just recently became a
part of one xml.apache.org project, and have been a member of the Apache
community only about 6 months. Before I got involved, though, I was
using both Jakarta and xml.apache.org software for quite a while. To me
the xml.apache.org brand was always a "subsidiary brand" of ASF, as was
Jakarta. It carries enough weight that I have looked here first when I
need a piece of software for a project, and will try an Apache project
out before a random Sourceforge one every time.
$0.02
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that...
I don't think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the
tapestry guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an XML.apache.org...
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <ni...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
>
>
> Steven Noels wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >> Steven Noels wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Less structure, more responsibility.
> >
> >
> > ACK
> >
> >>> Also, I don't know whether this approach will help smaller
> >>> communities to mix & merge: they'll get lost without some proper
> >>> identity. Do we want incubator or commons to contain that many
> >>> projects? How many people will still have the overview?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Apart from having all commit privileges to all jakarta projects, I
> >> don't see why this will necessarily change communities. They don't
> >> have to mix and merge, they are simply becoming aware that they are
> >> part of Jakarta, or have to go top-level.
> >>
> >> Increasing awareness of what Jakarta and Xml.Apache really are -
> >> projects - instead of pretending they are smaller Apaches.
> >
> >
> > Point taken & agree.
> >
> > Getting back to the original question however, it felt like Ted (as XML
> > PMC member) came to ask us what this XML project needs to be, i.e. what
> > the XML PMC should take care off. If everyone leaves and becomes a
> > toplevel project (which I don't believe will happen), what will happen
> > to the XML project then?
>
> If (as you believe will not happen) not all projects become top-level,
> there is no problem.
> If all go top-level, they will be happy of it, since they are not
> obliged to do it, so itìs still not a problem.
>
> Bottom line: tell everyone what should be done, ie top-level or in the
> same xml project.
>
> If something is needed, it will naturally remain.
> If it's not it will naturally go away.
I am not trying to tell anyone or any project what to do. I am trying to
help the
xml.apache.org community understand some issues which I did not understand
that well myself until recently. I haven't come to a conclusive opinion
on what
should be done. Sam and I talked at ApacheCon, and at the point where that
discussion occurred, I was feeling very much that we ought to push the xml
subprojects to become top level projects. A few days later I had lunch with
Dirk, and he pointed out that top-leveling all the projects is not a panacea
for
some of the issues in some of the projects, and so my enthusiasm for
top-leveling
has cooled somewhat. My opinions on this are evolving. My hope is that as
we
discuss, people will be able to determine the merits of the various
solutions for
the projects that they are involved with, and take appropriate action.
Ted
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Steven Noels wrote:
>
>
>> Less structure, more responsibility.
>
>
> ACK
>
>>> Also, I don't know whether this approach will help smaller
>>> communities to mix & merge: they'll get lost without some proper
>>> identity. Do we want incubator or commons to contain that many
>>> projects? How many people will still have the overview?
>>
>>
>>
>> Apart from having all commit privileges to all jakarta projects, I
>> don't see why this will necessarily change communities. They don't
>> have to mix and merge, they are simply becoming aware that they are
>> part of Jakarta, or have to go top-level.
>>
>> Increasing awareness of what Jakarta and Xml.Apache really are -
>> projects - instead of pretending they are smaller Apaches.
>
>
> Point taken & agree.
>
> Getting back to the original question however, it felt like Ted (as XML
> PMC member) came to ask us what this XML project needs to be, i.e. what
> the XML PMC should take care off. If everyone leaves and becomes a
> toplevel project (which I don't believe will happen), what will happen
> to the XML project then?
If (as you believe will not happen) not all projects become top-level,
there is no problem.
If all go top-level, they will be happy of it, since they are not
obliged to do it, so itìs still not a problem.
Bottom line: tell everyone what should be done, ie top-level or in the
same xml project.
If something is needed, it will naturally remain.
If it's not it will naturally go away.
-> No problem :-)
> I'll think some more about that.
>
> </Steven>
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Andy Clark <an...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> If everyone leaves and becomes a toplevel project (which
> I don't believe will happen), what will happen to the
> XML project then?
I think too much effort is being expended trying to
decide between everything being a top-level project
or kept within a project group (e.g. XML, Jakarta).
And the problem is intensified by the fact that
there are projects that cross boundaries. So why
have these boundaries at all?
Instead of thinking of where each project feels
comfortable developing, we should be thinking about
how users find the projects and solutions that they
need. Users, especially new ones, don't approach
Apache thinking that they need Tomcat and Cocoon;
they are looking for a server application that lets
them dynamically generate web pages using XML.
So I say make every project independent (unless
there is a direct, mandatory dependency -- i.e. a
sub-project) and then allow each project to decide
which taxonomy (or taxonomies) that are appropriate.
--
Andy Clark * andyc@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Steven Noels wrote:
> Less structure, more responsibility.
ACK
>> Also, I don't know whether this approach will help smaller communities
>> to mix & merge: they'll get lost without some proper identity. Do we
>> want incubator or commons to contain that many projects? How many
>> people will still have the overview?
>
>
> Apart from having all commit privileges to all jakarta projects, I don't
> see why this will necessarily change communities. They don't have to mix
> and merge, they are simply becoming aware that they are part of Jakarta,
> or have to go top-level.
>
> Increasing awareness of what Jakarta and Xml.Apache really are -
> projects - instead of pretending they are smaller Apaches.
Point taken & agree.
Getting back to the original question however, it felt like Ted (as XML
PMC member) came to ask us what this XML project needs to be, i.e. what
the XML PMC should take care off. If everyone leaves and becomes a
toplevel project (which I don't believe will happen), what will happen
to the XML project then?
I'll think some more about that.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>> I understand your point that a single PMC overlooking a lot of
>>> scattered projects doesn't scale. Still, I believe some of these
>>> smallish subprojects can share a common spirit, without sharing the
>>> developers community. Merging all of these will make them less
>>> visible to the outside world IMHO - meaning developers can meet,
>>> merge or exchange, but to prospective users it will all be one big
>>> sinkhole.
>>
>>
>>
>> IIUC this is to gently nudge them to go top-level with their own PMC.
>> If they want visibility, they need take also the responsibilities.
>
>
> I agree this is a good solution for the large projects with an active
> community (e.g. Cocoon in the xml.a.o case). Still, I'm not sure whether
> the board needs this avalanche of toplevel projects, all required to
> post their STATUS once in a while, all present upon meetings, etc etc...
> we'll just move the scalability problem one level up, I fear.
No, we are putting *responsibility* where it belongs.
Top level projects have a chair who is legally representative of Apache,
and should manage themselves. Having the whole Jakarta PMC manage them
is too much. What we want to do is not to shift the management to the
board, but to maki it go to the projects.
Less structure, more responsibility.
> Also, I don't know whether this approach will help smaller communities
> to mix & merge: they'll get lost without some proper identity. Do we
> want incubator or commons to contain that many projects? How many people
> will still have the overview?
Apart from having all commit privileges to all jakarta projects, I don't
see why this will necessarily change communities. They don't have to mix
and merge, they are simply becoming aware that they are part of Jakarta,
or have to go top-level.
Increasing awareness of what Jakarta and Xml.Apache really are -
projects - instead of pretending they are smaller Apaches.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> to mix & merge: they'll get lost without some proper identity. Do we
> want incubator or commons to contain that many projects? How many people
> will still have the overview?
>
> Or when they all become top level projects with no management
> container/grouping/clustinger - can the board maintain overview ?
If the projects are able to maintain themselves IMHO yes, as it is in my
company organization.
I am the project manager here and have weekly meetings with 12 people,
all from different work units; if they do their job well and just need
to report, the meeting takes no more than 20 minutes. If they "whine"
(yes, it happens ;-) then it can take more than the whole morning.
The board can always find a pattern in the problems and requests it
recieves, and create groups that address these issues for them, like the
infrastructure group or the incubator project.
Grouping IMHO makes sense, but not really from a management perspective,
since projects can be part of many groups (ie cocoon=java+xml+...).
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
> to mix & merge: they'll get lost without some proper identity. Do we
> want incubator or commons to contain that many projects? How many people
> will still have the overview?
Or when they all become top level projects with no management
container/grouping/clustinger - can the board maintain overview ?
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> I understand your point that a single PMC overlooking a lot of
>> scattered projects doesn't scale. Still, I believe some of these
>> smallish subprojects can share a common spirit, without sharing the
>> developers community. Merging all of these will make them less visible
>> to the outside world IMHO - meaning developers can meet, merge or
>> exchange, but to prospective users it will all be one big sinkhole.
>
>
> IIUC this is to gently nudge them to go top-level with their own PMC.
> If they want visibility, they need take also the responsibilities.
I agree this is a good solution for the large projects with an active
community (e.g. Cocoon in the xml.a.o case). Still, I'm not sure whether
the board needs this avalanche of toplevel projects, all required to
post their STATUS once in a while, all present upon meetings, etc etc...
we'll just move the scalability problem one level up, I fear.
Also, I don't know whether this approach will help smaller communities
to mix & merge: they'll get lost without some proper identity. Do we
want incubator or commons to contain that many projects? How many people
will still have the overview?
</Steven>
http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/2002/12/03.html#a80 ;-)
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> Merge or diverge. Having community boundaries distinct from PMC
>> boundaries is not sustainable.
>
>
> And what about Commons and Commons-Sandbox? One can imagine these as the
> refugee camps for smallish subprojects, without the 'community' to go
> toplevel.
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-commons/
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-commons-sandbox/
>
> might contain a lot of subprojects which doesn't fit your criteria
> sizewise. Should these all be put back to incubator stage? Or do they
> share a common 'Commons' community?
>
> I understand your point that a single PMC overlooking a lot of scattered
> projects doesn't scale. Still, I believe some of these smallish
> subprojects can share a common spirit, without sharing the developers
> community. Merging all of these will make them less visible to the
> outside world IMHO - meaning developers can meet, merge or exchange, but
> to prospective users it will all be one big sinkhole.
IIUC this is to gently nudge them to go top-level with their own PMC.
If they want visibility, they need take also the responsibilities.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
One way of looking at Jakarta Commons Sandbox is as a kind of incubator. So
you
could argue that those projects should move to incubation...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Noels" <st...@outerthought.org>
To: <ge...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > Merge or diverge. Having community boundaries distinct from PMC
> > boundaries is not sustainable.
>
> And what about Commons and Commons-Sandbox? One can imagine these as the
> refugee camps for smallish subprojects, without the 'community' to go
> toplevel.
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-commons/
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-commons-sandbox/
>
> might contain a lot of subprojects which doesn't fit your criteria
> sizewise. Should these all be put back to incubator stage? Or do they
> share a common 'Commons' community?
>
> I understand your point that a single PMC overlooking a lot of scattered
> projects doesn't scale. Still, I believe some of these smallish
> subprojects can share a common spirit, without sharing the developers
> community. Merging all of these will make them less visible to the
> outside world IMHO - meaning developers can meet, merge or exchange, but
> to prospective users it will all be one big sinkhole.
>
> </Steven>
> --
> Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
> Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
> Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
> stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Merge or diverge. Having community boundaries distinct from PMC
> boundaries is not sustainable.
And what about Commons and Commons-Sandbox? One can imagine these as the
refugee camps for smallish subprojects, without the 'community' to go
toplevel.
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-commons/
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-commons-sandbox/
might contain a lot of subprojects which doesn't fit your criteria
sizewise. Should these all be put back to incubator stage? Or do they
share a common 'Commons' community?
I understand your point that a single PMC overlooking a lot of scattered
projects doesn't scale. Still, I believe some of these smallish
subprojects can share a common spirit, without sharing the developers
community. Merging all of these will make them less visible to the
outside world IMHO - meaning developers can meet, merge or exchange, but
to prospective users it will all be one big sinkhole.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Ruby" <ru...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
> Steven Noels wrote:
> > [suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
>
> > bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
> >
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdier
ken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dma
rston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,a
rkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanisla
v,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,v
mote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
> >
> > bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
> >
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,
mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiv
a,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gma
rcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkessel
m,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jamb
roziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-x
ang,xml-admin,xml-commons
> >
> > From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
> > then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
>
> If taken literally, my read of this is that they are essentially the
> same community.
>
The answer here is that when xml.apache.org was formed, all the committers
of the original projects were given commit access on all the projects.
It may not have been the right thing to do, but that's the historical
explanation for the avail entries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> [suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
>
>> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
>> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
>> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
>> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
>> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
>> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
>
> Please define 'a few':
Some undefined number above three. Undefined only because it is a
judgment call.
> bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
> avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
>
> bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
> avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
>
> From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
> then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
If taken literally, my read of this is that they are essentially the
same community.
>> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we
>> have. But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing
>> any physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin
>> to phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various
>> subprojects. Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged
>> to form their own separate projects (or move into incubation).
>
> I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
> concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
> Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
> based on some well-defined criteria.
Each community is welcome to define its own criteria.
> Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
> earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
OK, as long as separate community = separate project (in the ASF sense).
> That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
> cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
If the cocoon and forrest share the same community, then this is fine
with me. Otherwise, this they should be peer projects.
>> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
>> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
OK.
>> What do others think?
>
> I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
Merge or diverge. Having community boundaries distinct from PMC
boundaries is not sustainable.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
Please define 'a few':
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
based on some well-defined criteria.
Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
> What do others think?
I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that...
I don't think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the
tapestry guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an XML.apache.org...
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>.
Hi, I didn't reply to the whole list of lists to which this was posted,
but I wanted to see if anyone in the XML-RPC project has a better angle
on this than I do.
What does this all mean in English? This seems to be the tail end of a
long thread from some other list. How is this going to affect the
XML-RPC project?
For example, I would be alarmed to see XML-RPC, Axis, and XML-Security
all get a mandate to become one project or leave Apache.
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
>
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we
> have. But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing
> any physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin
> to phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various
> subprojects. Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged
> to form their own separate projects (or move into incubation).
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
Please define 'a few':
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
based on some well-defined criteria.
Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
> What do others think?
I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that...
I don't think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the
tapestry guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an XML.apache.org...
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@covalent.net>.
On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 16:41, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
>
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
( I changed the to: to include jakarta :-)
I think it is a good idea in general, as long as it is done gradually.
I personally think jakarta-commons commit model works fine ( even if
the one-mailing-list is not working as well :-). Even when it didn't
seem to work that well ( early days of xml-client for example ), it
actually did work as it was supposed to, and I think people learned
to keep track of what they need and use their vote.
Probably having the walls removed between projects that are close
( tomcat/jasper and taglibs or struts, etc ) would be a good start.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
Please define 'a few':
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
based on some well-defined criteria.
Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
> What do others think?
I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
Please define 'a few':
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
based on some well-defined criteria.
Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
> What do others think?
I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
Please define 'a few':
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
based on some well-defined criteria.
Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
> What do others think?
I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that...
I don't think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the
tapestry guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an XML.apache.org...
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
Please define 'a few':
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
based on some well-defined criteria.
Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
> What do others think?
I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
Please define 'a few':
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
based on some well-defined criteria.
Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
> What do others think?
I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
Please define 'a few':
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
based on some well-defined criteria.
Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
> What do others think?
I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that...
I don't think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the
tapestry guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an XML.apache.org...
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> > projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
Please define 'a few':
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons
bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons
From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community
then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.
> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
> But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
> physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
> phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
> Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
> own separate projects (or move into incubation).
I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially
concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting
Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it
based on some well-defined criteria.
Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be
earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.
That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like
cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.
> What do others think?
I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that...
I don't think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the
tapestry guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an XML.apache.org...
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that...
I don't think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the
tapestry guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an XML.apache.org...
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
>
> What do others think?
It continues to sound reasonable to me, but I'd personally like to see
the Jakarta "brand" continue. Not sure how to *do* that...
I don't think the same applies to XML. Note that I asked like the
tapestry guys "want to be top level" and it was "well no one will
find us there, we want Jakarta"... They're probably right quite
honestly. Half the people I know barely know there is an XML.apache.org...
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
> 1. Help any xml.apache.org project that wishes to become a top-level
> project to do so. Each
> top-level project will then have its own PMC which will report directly
> to the ASF board.
-0, since it doesn't provide any 'safe harbor' for non-toplevel XML
projects. Also, this would require (IIUC) loads of new people to be
added as officers (http://www.apache.org/foundation/), and maybe some
communities wouldn't warrant that (sizewise). AFAIK, Cocoon is the only
project with the ambition of going toplevel.
Let's face it: there are several smaller XML projects, which should be
pampered somehow by a larger community. Pampering in terms of project
setup assistance, legal guidance (and protection), etc... So there is a
role for a common XML PMC.
Another scenario would be topleveling the larger projects, and move the
smaller ones towards Jakarta. I'm not sure whether people would want
that. OTOH, XML is everywhere now :-)
> 2. Expand the xml.apache.org PMC so that every project has a representative
+1, increasing the possibility of 'being more present'. Sorry to say so,
but even though my primary work area is XML-related, I happen to 'know'
more PMC members on the Jakarta side, from posts and interventions on
these mailing lists. I recall myself at least once sending an email to
pmc@xml.a.o which remained unanswered. Maybe, if more people share the
burden of the xml.a.o PMC, questions will not remain unanswered anymore.
Also, I think the common pages of xml.apache.org might need a slight
'contentual' revamp too: I transcoded them to the new xdocs format
required by Forrest several months ago, Nicola pushed them live, but all
this without much interventions nor questions by the xml.a.o PMC. So
even though we now have a new website, it's still the same old content,
and not much has happened on a general level inside xml.a.o
Revamping the community spirit on a general xml.a.o-level is something
an expanded PMC might perhaps work on - and I know this isn't strictly
required from a PMC. But since the birth of that new community-thing,
since several other Apache projects have decided to go toplevel, I have
been wondering what the goal and scope of xml.a.o are when all larger
projects will eventually move away, and new code donations will arrive
at incubator.a.o (still remains to be seen, however).
> 3. Alter the structure of xml.apache.org to have an "administrative" PMC
> that takes care of legal type
> stuff, and a "technical" PMC that focuses more on techical issues and
> oversight.
I don't see how much that would change.
Cheers,
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Turner" <je...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:21:19PM -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
> > Probably my largest concern has to do with ensuring that ASF style
> > processes are being followed on all projects. This includes subjective
> > measures such as "the health of the community" for a project, and
> > proposal of project committers for membership in the ASF.
>
> So.. how would making more projects top-level fix this? As part of
> xml.apache.org, subprojects at least have PMC members with some local
> knowledge of the projects. Would the ASF board have known what to do with
> the SOAP/WASP Lite/Axis issue? Would board members lurk on project
> lists, like XML PMC members do currently?
I'm not convinced that top-leveling will fix this. My original message
contained a list
of possiblities. You'll also note that I proposed expanding the existing
PMC.
> > Then there's the legal stuff, which includes the visibility to the
> > board, jar files, code without copyright, code with incompatible
> > copyright, code with patent infringements, etc.
>
> Hmm.. anyone care to guess how many patents Cocoon infringes?
I hope none. But right now, I have to hope, because there's no way I can
know -- I
can't keep up w/ all the commits to all of xml.
>
> > Then there's the issue of support from and participation in the general
ASF
> > infrastructure. That's "where do I go for this or that", or "You're
> > really an awesome security hack, you know, they could use some help on
> > security@".
>
> infrastructure@ is an open list, as I recently discovered.
Yes, but how did you discover the list...
>
> --Jeff
>
> > Ted
> ...
> > > Let's clarify exactly what is broken before fixing it.
> > >
> > >
> > > --Jeff
> > >
> > > > Ted
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
> Jeff's question below about the legal relevance of PMC's is a good one.
> Does someone from the board have a definitive answer for this?
IANAL.
The simplest and most direct answer is that if the PMCs which were set
up for this expressed purpose can not demonstrate that they have
provided oversight, then the ASF itself is exposed.
With that out of the way, two examples, assuming PMCs exercising proper
oversight:
1) A person who is a committer explicitly and intentionally sets out to
sabotage the ASF by introducing code which is owned by a third party
without the permission of that third party. That code is quickly
detected; the code and the committer are ejected. There never is a
release with that code.
The third party could decide to pursue legal action against the
sabotager, but the ASF did its job.
2) Somebody attempts asserts ownership of a concept (say, hyperlinks),
for which there is ample prior art, and an ASF codebase that provides an
implementation of that concept. The ASF asserts ownership over that
codebase and explicitly indemnifies its "shareholders", namely its
membership.
For these examples to work there needs to not be any nooks and crannies
where unmonitored code may reside.
I hope I got this right, but I am sure that Roy will correct me if I'm
wrong. ;-)
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
> Jeff's question below about the legal relevance of PMC's is a good one.
> Does someone from the board have a definitive answer for this?
IANAL.
The simplest and most direct answer is that if the PMCs which were set
up for this expressed purpose can not demonstrate that they have
provided oversight, then the ASF itself is exposed.
With that out of the way, two examples, assuming PMCs exercising proper
oversight:
1) A person who is a committer explicitly and intentionally sets out to
sabotage the ASF by introducing code which is owned by a third party
without the permission of that third party. That code is quickly
detected; the code and the committer are ejected. There never is a
release with that code.
The third party could decide to pursue legal action against the
sabotager, but the ASF did its job.
2) Somebody attempts asserts ownership of a concept (say, hyperlinks),
for which there is ample prior art, and an ASF codebase that provides an
implementation of that concept. The ASF asserts ownership over that
codebase and explicitly indemnifies its "shareholders", namely its
membership.
For these examples to work there needs to not be any nooks and crannies
where unmonitored code may reside.
I hope I got this right, but I am sure that Roy will correct me if I'm
wrong. ;-)
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
Jeff's question below about the legal relevance of PMC's is a good one.
Does someone from the board have a definitive answer for this?
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Turner" <je...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:53:08AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> [snip 1-vs-many PMCs]
> > >>Then there's the legal stuff, which includes the visibility to the
> > >>board, jar files, code without copyright, code with incompatible
> > >>copyright, code with patent infringements, etc.
> > >
> > >Hmm.. anyone care to guess how m any patents Cocoon infringes?
> >
> > Ok, then let's not even try then, who cares, oh and while we're at it
> > let's remove the PMCs, why are they needed, oh and the board too, oh and
> > why Apache at all... get real, try to be constructive. If nobody cares,
> > tell me what we should do to solve the problem instead of
> > institutionalizing it.
>
> I'm suggesting that while the PMCs are worrying about the possibility of
> a LGPL jar in CVS, Microsoft might be poised to wipe Apache off the map
> with 0.00001% of its legal budget because Cocoon infringes some obscure
> patent of theirs.
>
> This is a question about the legal relevance of PMCs in general, not
> directly related to the current debate. I would personally like to know
> whether PMCs are any use (legally) at all, before debating whether there
> should be one or many.
>
> --Jeff
>
> > --
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> > - verba volant, scripta manent -
> > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> They are. Things done by entities entiteled by the Apache board are
> doing it in the name of Apache. PMCs are. Simple committers aren't.
> Thus Apache will protect entities that it has officially and legally
> appointed.
>
> But the existence of PMCs is not in this debate, nor if the current
> legal structure of Apache. If you have questions or suggestions please
> post them on community@apache.org and/or general@incubator.apache.org
Ted started a discussion which I now colloquially summarize into 'has
the XML PMC been doing a good job lately?'. Jeff seeks clarification as
to what PMCs are _required_ to do, tangentially stating the thought
whether they are ultimately needed, in order to be able to comment on
the original question.
I don't see the point in trying to police this thread's content, as long
as we discuss as civil beings.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:53:08AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> [snip 1-vs-many PMCs]
>
>>>>Then there's the legal stuff, which includes the visibility to the
>>>>board, jar files, code without copyright, code with incompatible
>>>>copyright, code with patent infringements, etc.
>>>
>>>Hmm.. anyone care to guess how many patents Cocoon infringes?
>>
>>Ok, then let's not even try then, who cares, oh and while we're at it
>>let's remove the PMCs, why are they needed, oh and the board too, oh and
>>why Apache at all... get real, try to be constructive. If nobody cares,
>>tell me what we should do to solve the problem instead of
>>institutionalizing it.
>
> I'm suggesting that while the PMCs are worrying about the possibility of
> a LGPL jar in CVS, Microsoft might be poised to wipe Apache off the map
> with 0.00001% of its legal budget because Cocoon infringes some obscure
> patent of theirs.
Anything can happen. We are here to take all *reasonable* measures to
not make it happen. Checking jars and doing our best in making
contributors sign the contributor's agreement before becoming committers
all give a certain degree of protection, and not doing them just because
the protection is not theoretically total (ever if this concept exists
in this world) is not correct.
> This is a question about the legal relevance of PMCs in general, not
> directly related to the current debate. I would personally like to know
> whether PMCs are any use (legally) at all, before debating whether there
> should be one or many.
They are. Things done by entities entiteled by the Apache board are
doing it in the name of Apache. PMCs are. Simple committers aren't.
Thus Apache will protect entities that it has officially and legally
appointed.
But the existence of PMCs is not in this debate, nor if the current
legal structure of Apache. If you have questions or suggestions please
post them on community@apache.org and/or general@incubator.apache.org
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:53:08AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
[snip 1-vs-many PMCs]
> >>Then there's the legal stuff, which includes the visibility to the
> >>board, jar files, code without copyright, code with incompatible
> >>copyright, code with patent infringements, etc.
> >
> >Hmm.. anyone care to guess how many patents Cocoon infringes?
>
> Ok, then let's not even try then, who cares, oh and while we're at it
> let's remove the PMCs, why are they needed, oh and the board too, oh and
> why Apache at all... get real, try to be constructive. If nobody cares,
> tell me what we should do to solve the problem instead of
> institutionalizing it.
I'm suggesting that while the PMCs are worrying about the possibility of
a LGPL jar in CVS, Microsoft might be poised to wipe Apache off the map
with 0.00001% of its legal budget because Cocoon infringes some obscure
patent of theirs.
This is a question about the legal relevance of PMCs in general, not
directly related to the current debate. I would personally like to know
whether PMCs are any use (legally) at all, before debating whether there
should be one or many.
--Jeff
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Thinking about roles...
Posted by Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>.
It's much better to treat the various roles that individuals may adopt
as distinct attributions, or booleans, rather than try to sort them
into some hierarchy. That helps to keep the discussion focused on how
the role managed: how people enter the role, what rights and
responsibilities come with it, and how they exit the role. For example
pmc-member and apache-foundation-member are overlapping sets, but they
are different roles. I
believe there are some examples of pmc-member that aren't committers to
anything, or even never have been.
Yeah, we have lots of roles. Manager of release R, mailing list
moderator of mailing list Z, members of wheel on machine M, treasurer
of foundation A, participant in design debate D. Many of these roles
are much more critical to the vibrant operation of the thang than the
ones with legal entanglements. For example: performance-geek, or
documentation-writer in language L, operator of mirror, Capturing
short descriptions of as many of these roles as possible is healthy.
Particularly because it avoids people getting all fixated about one or
two of these roles.
Roles are are also associated with entities ( R, Z, M, A, P, D).
Capturing short descriptions of those is healthy too. I like the
glossary as about the right weight for getting started on those tasks.
I enjoy use the software OOP design paradigm, among others, to think
about this tedium. There is also the legal paradigms that overlay some
of it.
There are lots of other paradigms. For example economists have
something they call a 'public-good' for example the levees along a
river are a public-good, as is a cure for cancer or RFC 2616. Many
public goods are managed by people who adopt or are assigned the
responsible role over that good. A levee for example fails if only one
of these people screws up anyplace along it's length. A cure for
cancer on the other hand succeeds if any one of the people working on
it succeed. We keep our source open to capture cool new (cures) to
our problems, we limit commit rights to help guard the quality
(security) of the code (and the project).
There is also a large literature on the theory of organizations. Max
Weber, for example, wrote volumes on this as a consequence of picking
apart the Prussian government bureaucracy. In fact he teased out
what's practically a moral framework: that people are impersonally
separate from their offices, that written down procedures guide
operations, that objective attention to details and orders is "de
rigour", that people are treated fairly and impartially under the law,
etc.
We could us a modicum - not to hot, not too cold - of that mixed into
the foundation's operations. I'm glad I trust the folks in incubator
that have taken on that task, since it's really easy to kill the
butterfly as you attempt to dissect it.
- ben
ps. The analogies to how my teenage sons play Magic also amuse me.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 07:52 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> - copying incubator as a notice of RFE about the docs -
>
> Steven Noels wrote:
>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>> Ok, then let's not even try then, who cares, oh and while we're at
>>> it let's remove the PMCs, why are they needed, oh and the board too,
>>> oh and why Apache at all... get real, try to be constructive. If
>>> nobody cares, tell me what we should do to solve the problem instead
>>> of institutionalizing it.
>> I see this and I also see you stating that there exist 'various
>> levels of legal protection'. Maybe we should make those levels more
>> explicit, for:
>> * contributors (patches)
>> * committers
>> * PMC - non-Members
>> * PMC - Members
>> * Members
>> * Directors (VPs et al.)
>> * Board
>> Gee - I assume many will be surprised seeing _that_ many categories
>> existing within the Apache community. Also, given the fact committers
>> might receive wide-ranging commmit rights within federations of
>> non-topleveled projects (e.g. the future xml.a.o), I'm convinced
>> there exists several superfluous levels or differences in this
>> classification.
>> And I saw Sam already mentioning his inclination to be more liberal
>> with this 'Member'-thing on some list/blog (don't know where anymore,
>> information overload ;-)
>
> IMV there are
>
> 1 contributors-committers
> 2 PMC members
> 3 members
>
> Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but it's simply that 2 and 3 will be
> protected by Apache, the more if what they do is done following the
> Apache guidelines and in the interest of Apache.
>
> IE, if you are a member but deliberately commit illegal stuff to CVS
> and do other things like this, I don't know how much protection you
> will recieve, but that's IMVHO and Personal opinion.
>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
- copying incubator as a notice of RFE about the docs -
Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Ok, then let's not even try then, who cares, oh and while we're at it
>> let's remove the PMCs, why are they needed, oh and the board too, oh
>> and why Apache at all... get real, try to be constructive. If nobody
>> cares, tell me what we should do to solve the problem instead of
>> institutionalizing it.
>
>
> I see this and I also see you stating that there exist 'various levels
> of legal protection'. Maybe we should make those levels more explicit, for:
>
> * contributors (patches)
> * committers
> * PMC - non-Members
> * PMC - Members
> * Members
> * Directors (VPs et al.)
> * Board
>
> Gee - I assume many will be surprised seeing _that_ many categories
> existing within the Apache community. Also, given the fact committers
> might receive wide-ranging commmit rights within federations of
> non-topleveled projects (e.g. the future xml.a.o), I'm convinced there
> exists several superfluous levels or differences in this classification.
>
> And I saw Sam already mentioning his inclination to be more liberal with
> this 'Member'-thing on some list/blog (don't know where anymore,
> information overload ;-)
IMV there are
1 contributors-committers
2 PMC members
3 members
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but it's simply that 2 and 3 will be
protected by Apache, the more if what they do is done following the
Apache guidelines and in the interest of Apache.
IE, if you are a member but deliberately commit illegal stuff to CVS and
do other things like this, I don't know how much protection you will
recieve, but that's IMVHO and Personal opinion.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
- copying incubator as a notice of RFE about the docs -
Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Ok, then let's not even try then, who cares, oh and while we're at it
>> let's remove the PMCs, why are they needed, oh and the board too, oh
>> and why Apache at all... get real, try to be constructive. If nobody
>> cares, tell me what we should do to solve the problem instead of
>> institutionalizing it.
>
>
> I see this and I also see you stating that there exist 'various levels
> of legal protection'. Maybe we should make those levels more explicit, for:
>
> * contributors (patches)
> * committers
> * PMC - non-Members
> * PMC - Members
> * Members
> * Directors (VPs et al.)
> * Board
>
> Gee - I assume many will be surprised seeing _that_ many categories
> existing within the Apache community. Also, given the fact committers
> might receive wide-ranging commmit rights within federations of
> non-topleveled projects (e.g. the future xml.a.o), I'm convinced there
> exists several superfluous levels or differences in this classification.
>
> And I saw Sam already mentioning his inclination to be more liberal with
> this 'Member'-thing on some list/blog (don't know where anymore,
> information overload ;-)
IMV there are
1 contributors-committers
2 PMC members
3 members
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but it's simply that 2 and 3 will be
protected by Apache, the more if what they do is done following the
Apache guidelines and in the interest of Apache.
IE, if you are a member but deliberately commit illegal stuff to CVS and
do other things like this, I don't know how much protection you will
recieve, but that's IMVHO and Personal opinion.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ok, then let's not even try then, who cares, oh and while we're at it
> let's remove the PMCs, why are they needed, oh and the board too, oh and
> why Apache at all... get real, try to be constructive. If nobody cares,
> tell me what we should do to solve the problem instead of
> institutionalizing it.
I see this and I also see you stating that there exist 'various levels
of legal protection'. Maybe we should make those levels more explicit, for:
* contributors (patches)
* committers
* PMC - non-Members
* PMC - Members
* Members
* Directors (VPs et al.)
* Board
Gee - I assume many will be surprised seeing _that_ many categories
existing within the Apache community. Also, given the fact committers
might receive wide-ranging commmit rights within federations of
non-topleveled projects (e.g. the future xml.a.o), I'm convinced there
exists several superfluous levels or differences in this classification.
And I saw Sam already mentioning his inclination to be more liberal with
this 'Member'-thing on some list/blog (don't know where anymore,
information overload ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:21:19PM -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
>
>>Probably my largest concern has to do with ensuring that ASF style
>>processes are being followed on all projects. This includes subjective
>>measures such as "the health of the community" for a project, and
>>proposal of project committers for membership in the ASF.
>
>
> So.. how would making more projects top-level fix this? As part of
> xml.apache.org, subprojects at least have PMC members with some local
> knowledge of the projects. Would the ASF board have known what to do with
> the SOAP/WASP Lite/Axis issue? Would board members lurk on project
> lists, like XML PMC members do currently?
Again, the board will not become the over-PMC.
Each project will be responsible and accountable for what it does.
Before one PMC - many subprojects.
After many PMCs - mo subprojects.
This doesn't change how the board operates with PMCs.
>>Then there's the legal stuff, which includes the visibility to the
>>board, jar files, code without copyright, code with incompatible
>>copyright, code with patent infringements, etc.
>
> Hmm.. anyone care to guess how many patents Cocoon infringes?
Ok, then let's not even try then, who cares, oh and while we're at it
let's remove the PMCs, why are they needed, oh and the board too, oh and
why Apache at all... get real, try to be constructive. If nobody cares,
tell me what we should do to solve the problem instead of
institutionalizing it.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:21:19PM -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
> Probably my largest concern has to do with ensuring that ASF style
> processes are being followed on all projects. This includes subjective
> measures such as "the health of the community" for a project, and
> proposal of project committers for membership in the ASF.
So.. how would making more projects top-level fix this? As part of
xml.apache.org, subprojects at least have PMC members with some local
knowledge of the projects. Would the ASF board have known what to do with
the SOAP/WASP Lite/Axis issue? Would board members lurk on project
lists, like XML PMC members do currently?
> Then there's the legal stuff, which includes the visibility to the
> board, jar files, code without copyright, code with incompatible
> copyright, code with patent infringements, etc.
Hmm.. anyone care to guess how many patents Cocoon infringes?
> Then there's the issue of support from and participation in the general ASF
> infrastructure. That's "where do I go for this or that", or "You're
> really an awesome security hack, you know, they could use some help on
> security@".
infrastructure@ is an open list, as I recently discovered.
--Jeff
> Ted
...
> > Let's clarify exactly what is broken before fixing it.
> >
> >
> > --Jeff
> >
> > > Ted
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
> This includes subjective measures such as "the health of the
> community" for a project, and proposal of project committers for
> membership in the ASF.
<snip/>
> Then there's the issue of support from and participation in the
> general ASF infrastructure. That's "where do I go for this or that",
> or "You're really an awesome security hack, you know, they could use
> some help on security@".
Neat! Where do I sign up?
This is exactly what I would like it to be: facilitation rather than
regulation. Being there, actively helping out people. For cocoondev.org,
we had the idea to have one 'PMC-style' guy specifically appointed to
each project to explicitely shepherd a project at important moments.
While I understand this 'put the responsibility where it belongs' thing,
hence topleveling, I think we should help out projects who don't feel
quite ready to take up that responsibility. There is still a need for an
XML PMC IMO.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
Probably my largest concern has to do with ensuring that ASF style processes
are
being followed on all projects. This includes subjective measures such as
"the health
of the community" for a project, and proposal of project committers for
membership
in the ASF.
Then there's the legal stuff, which includes the visibility to the board,
jar files, code
without copyright, code with incompatible copyright, code with patent
infringements,
etc.
Then there's the issue of support from and participation in the general ASF
infrastructure.
That's "where do I go for this or that", or "You're really an awesome
security hack, you
know, they could use some help on security@".
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Turner" <je...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:12:25PM -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
> ...
> > I feel that the level of oversight that is being provided for the
> > xml.apache.org projects is insufficient.
>
> In what way?
>
> Beyond ensuring nobody checks in (L)GPL'ed jars, or code without
copyrights,
>
> > and the projects are not getting the help/guidance/whatever that they
> > need from the ASF.
>
> Well it would be nice to have someone to ask if, say, activation.jar is
> allowed in CVS, but does it take more than 7 people on pmc@ to answer
> this?
>
> ...
> > Please express your opinions!
>
> Let's clarify exactly what is broken before fixing it.
>
>
> --Jeff
>
> > Ted
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 07:52:42AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
> >That still leaves the question: in what way is the current XML PMC
> >failing in its duties.
>
> What do you think its duties are?
>From observing Jakarta and XML, I'd say:
a) Voting on new projects
b) Keeping things vaguely legal. Checking that projects don't sneak
@year@ tokens into licenses, etc.
> >I can see that the Jakarta PMC might have missed stuff happening in the
> >depths of Commons and Avalon, but xml.apache.org is a much quieter place.
>
> The Xml PMC cannot review all code commits and placement of jars and
> licenses, and at the same time ensure that the Apache process for
> guidelines is followed, it's just too much work.
Review code commits for _what_?
Should the ASF be checking its code for patent infringements? If so,
then to credibly do its job the PMC must be composed of patent lawyers,
and the ASF should start playing the patents game: don't sue us on patent
X or we'll countersue on patent Y. Come to think of it, how come MS
hasn't sued Apache already, to get rid of this pesky IIS competitor?
Maybe because they're nice guys who prefer to compete than sue? Haha.
> How much time has the xml site been in need of an overhaul and fixes?
> How come the Xang project was still listed in the same space as the
> other active projects?
Yes, it's the PMC's job to fix these things. We are powerless ;)
> Where is the STATUS file detailed in the guidelines
> (http://xml.apache.org/source.html#N10028) in most projects?
> These points do not seem to be clearly part of the PMC mission ATM
> http://xml.apache.org/management.html , but in fact are.
Interestingly, that page seems to suggest that reviewing every patch is
not a PMC function.
"The PMC may not necessarily participate in the day-to-day coding.."
> ATM it's humanly impossible for the Xml PMC to do all this with all the
> projects and communities it has.
+1 for making them work harder. Policing code must be deeply rewarding
anyway :o)
--Jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
> The Xml PMC cannot review all code commits and placement of jars and
> licenses, and at the same time ensure that the Apache process for
> guidelines is followed, it's just too much work.
Not can the board cope with properly providing oversight to 100+
individual PMC's without some in between delegation. And with 100+
individual PMC's the board can do little to help clusters of 20-40
projects (say all XML parsing/standards related projects, all content
generators, all site engines) to somehow create/maintain a sense of
coherency. I personally do like it that all the xml parsers and processors
are nicely grouped to gether.
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:59:52PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Jeff Turner wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>Let's clarify exactly what is broken before fixing it.
>>
>>If you are not part of a PMC, you have no legal protection from the ASF.
>
>
> I understood that:
>
> - the ASF legal entity is there to protect ASF _members_
> - PMC member != ASF member. Eg, we're both Avalon PMC members, but if
> someone were to sue us, that would not benefit us.
>
> Thus, forming PMCs and flattening the structure in no way lessens the
> legal risk taken by non-member committers (the vast majority). If I'm
> wrong on this important point, please correct me.
IANAL, but PMC members have some form of protection.
The PMC is formally appointed by Apache to look over a project, and thus
operates under its request (by the board) and oversight (chair and
board). The ASF will protect the people it appoints.
> That still leaves the question: in what way is the current XML PMC
> failing in its duties.
What do you think its duties are?
> I can see that the Jakarta PMC might have missed stuff happening in the
> depths of Commons and Avalon, but xml.apache.org is a much quieter place.
The Xml PMC cannot review all code commits and placement of jars and
licenses, and at the same time ensure that the Apache process for
guidelines is followed, it's just too much work.
How much time has the xml site been in need of an overhaul and fixes?
How come the Xang project was still listed in the same space as the
other active projects? Where is the STATUS file detailed in the
guidelines (http://xml.apache.org/source.html#N10028) in most projects?
These points do not seem to be clearly part of the PMC mission ATM
http://xml.apache.org/management.html , but in fact are.
ATM it's humanly impossible for the Xml PMC to do all this with all the
projects and communities it has.
> <snip good quotes>
</snip good quotes>
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On Thursday, Dec 5, 2002, at 06:28 Europe/London, Ted Leung wrote:
> Do you have a preference for how to solve this problem?
I think it makes sense for every significant (i.e. active, either in
terms of community or development) project to have a member in the PMC.
I don't see much point in top-levelling just for the sake of it - it
seems to me like the only reason aside from legal protection to do it
is for the sake of ego. So change the legal protection.
Matt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
Do you have a preference for how to solve this problem?
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Sergeant" <ma...@sergeant.org>
To: <ge...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Jeff Turner wrote:
>
> > That still leaves the question: in what way is the current XML PMC
> > failing in its duties.
>
> Sometimes it's just too hard to get action through to the PMC level when a
> project doesn't have a PMC member in it (speaking personally for AxKit).
> Plus conversations go on about projects on the PMC lists behind a
> projects' back, and that's not healthy.
>
> --
> <!-- Matt -->
> <:->Get a smart net</:->
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by sc...@us.ibm.com.
Strong plus one for project-level representation, member to be voted in by
the given project. I have been an advocate for this for a very long time.
To the larger question of how the XML PMC is failing it's duties. I guess
I would like to see the PMC take a bit of a larger leadership role in:
1) Marketing xml.apache.org as a whole.
2) Architecture, though I don't think anything is particularly broken now.
Still, it would be neat to arrange some IRC sessions where we could
brainstorm about general technical directions, utility infrastructure, etc.
3) Attracting corporate level involvement. (What would it take to get
Oracle involved? Etc.) I like to think of Apache as a truly neutral
collaboration ground for companies as well as individual developers. Sun
and IBM have been doing well in this regard. It would be nice to bring
more players to the table.
I certainly think xml.apache.org should remain an entity, with projects
moving out when and if they feel the need. I don't see the need or benifit
for any deep reorganization. Sandbox would be nice.
As far as the issues about legal stuff that have been brought up, I wish
the ASF would provide some sort of resource to do this (check on legality
of jars, etc.). I don't think that legal protection should be a function
of the PMCs.
-scott
Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org> wrote on 12/04/2002 01:22:30 PM:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Jeff Turner wrote:
>
> > That still leaves the question: in what way is the current XML PMC
> > failing in its duties.
>
> Sometimes it's just too hard to get action through to the PMC level when
a
> project doesn't have a PMC member in it (speaking personally for AxKit).
> Plus conversations go on about projects on the PMC lists behind a
> projects' back, and that's not healthy.
>
> --
> <!-- Matt -->
> <:->Get a smart net</:->
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Jeff Turner wrote:
> That still leaves the question: in what way is the current XML PMC
> failing in its duties.
Sometimes it's just too hard to get action through to the PMC level when a
project doesn't have a PMC member in it (speaking personally for AxKit).
Plus conversations go on about projects on the PMC lists behind a
projects' back, and that's not healthy.
--
<!-- Matt -->
<:->Get a smart net</:->
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:59:52PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> [...]
> >Let's clarify exactly what is broken before fixing it.
>
> If you are not part of a PMC, you have no legal protection from the ASF.
I understood that:
- the ASF legal entity is there to protect ASF _members_
- PMC member != ASF member. Eg, we're both Avalon PMC members, but if
someone were to sue us, that would not benefit us.
Thus, forming PMCs and flattening the structure in no way lessens the
legal risk taken by non-member committers (the vast majority). If I'm
wrong on this important point, please correct me.
That still leaves the question: in what way is the current XML PMC
failing in its duties.
I can see that the Jakarta PMC might have missed stuff happening in the
depths of Commons and Avalon, but xml.apache.org is a much quieter place.
<snip good quotes>
--Jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
> If you are not part of a PMC, you have no legal protection from the ASF.
> Thus we are advocating that all projects be -projects- where possible
> (not sub-projects), with their own PMC with all dedicated committers in it.
...
> "The primary motivation is to create a more direct path from those
> accountable and responsible (the PMC) and the code. Without a direct,
> obvious, and demonstrable oversight, it will be impossible for the ASF
> to show that the code was developed and released according to *its* desires.
> IOW, it was done by individuals, so the liability falls to those
Obviously it would be possible to engineer something -other- than a PMC
which would give the same protection. All a PMC is in terms of its
relation of the board is a group of -named- people which are chartered
with a set of certain tasks. We could create something called a FooBar
with to a large extend those protective properties while having something
akin to a PMC with some slightly different tasks.
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
[...]
> Let's clarify exactly what is broken before fixing it.
If you are not part of a PMC, you have no legal protection from the ASF.
Thus we are advocating that all projects be -projects- where possible
(not sub-projects), with their own PMC with all dedicated committers in it.
Here is part of an explanation on avalon-dev from Greg Stein:
"The primary motivation is to create a more direct path from those
accountable and responsible (the PMC) and the code. Without a direct,
obvious, and demonstrable oversight, it will be impossible for the ASF
to show that the code was developed and released according to *its* desires.
IOW, it was done by individuals, so the liability falls to those
individuals.
Yes, the risk associated with that liability is awfully low, but the ASF
exists to make it zero. (the ASF exists for other reasons, of course,
but I'm trying to stay focused here :-)
"
and
"
The role of a PMC member does not incur any overhead relative to what
you are already doing. In fact, Roy Fielding has stated that the
division between a voting committer(*) and a PMC member is not supposed
to exist.
IOW, if you have voting rights, then you should be on the PMC.
The Chair has a duty to provide the Board with a quarterly report, but
has no other additional time overhead. The Chair *is* an officer of the
corporation, which incurs certain responsibilities and accountability,
but an officer also happens to receive more legal protection than the
PMC members :-)
"
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:12:25PM -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
> ...
> > I feel that the level of oversight that is being provided for the
> > xml.apache.org projects is insufficient.
>
> In what way?
>
> Beyond ensuring nobody checks in (L)GPL'ed jars, or code without copyrights,
>
> > and the projects are not getting the help/guidance/whatever that they
> > need from the ASF.
>
> Well it would be nice to have someone to ask if, say, activation.jar is
> allowed in CVS, but does it take more than 7 people on pmc@ to answer
> this?
>
> ...
> > Please express your opinions!
>
> Let's clarify exactly what is broken before fixing it.
That is a fair question ! And certainly not one I've got a good answer
for. Part of it ties into our being of a US incorperated; part of it is
defined in our bylaws. But we are at this point most certainly devoid of
an itemized list.
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:12:25PM -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
...
> I feel that the level of oversight that is being provided for the
> xml.apache.org projects is insufficient.
In what way?
Beyond ensuring nobody checks in (L)GPL'ed jars, or code without copyrights,
> and the projects are not getting the help/guidance/whatever that they
> need from the ASF.
Well it would be nice to have someone to ask if, say, activation.jar is
allowed in CVS, but does it take more than 7 people on pmc@ to answer
this?
...
> Please express your opinions!
Let's clarify exactly what is broken before fixing it.
--Jeff
> Ted
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>
> 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet.
Based initially on the reorg discussions, and then a number of F2F
discussions at ApacheCon, I am planning on proposing something radical
within Jakarta, but it applies equally well here. I provided some
foreshadowing for this proposal in an e-mail to community@apache.org,
with the subject of "Convergence, vetoes, forks, and projects".
Specifically, I said:
> Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
> projects. Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
> the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
> Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
> Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
> as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we have.
But the above provides a recipe to find out. Without changing any
physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin to
phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various subprojects.
Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged to form their
own separate projects (or move into incubation).
What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to
the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
What do others think?
- Sam Ruby
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
Please note that axkit's core dev list is axkit-dev@xml.apache.org or
axkit-devel@axkit.org (note the extra "el" :-). I've had to forward all
mails so far, so if you could all change follow ups that would be great.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-p-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
Please note that axkit's core dev list is axkit-dev@xml.apache.org or
axkit-devel@axkit.org (note the extra "el" :-). I've had to forward all
mails so far, so if you could all change follow ups that would be great.
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
Please note that axkit's core dev list is axkit-dev@xml.apache.org or
axkit-devel@axkit.org (note the extra "el" :-). I've had to forward all
mails so far, so if you could all change follow ups that would be great.
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Punte <st...@yahoo.com>.
Now that's VERY INTERESTING. There could easily be hundreds of such voilations already existing, and it wouldn't be obvious or easily observable. I guess the process is we just wait until a patent holder has an objection.
Steve
steve@candlelightsoftware.com
Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org> wrote:[let's keep this on general@xml.a.o please]
Steven Punte wrote:
> To date, my understanding of open source software is that it expresses
> no warranty at all. I'm unclear on what basis someone would be held
> libel in a legal action.
Patent infringements?
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[let's keep this on general@xml.a.o please]
Steven Punte wrote:
> To date, my understanding of open source software is that it expresses
> no warranty at all. I'm unclear on what basis someone would be held
> libel in a legal action.
Patent infringements?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
[let's keep this on general@xml.a.o please]
Steven Punte wrote:
> To date, my understanding of open source software is that it expresses
> no warranty at all. I'm unclear on what basis someone would be held
> libel in a legal action.
Patent infringements?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Steven Punte <st...@yahoo.com>.
Ted:
Can you give us a couple examples, without exposing anything sensitive, of previous litigation and or attempted litigation against Apache open source members?
It would be very helpful to have some understanding of how and why this can come about so that we can adopt a preventive posture.
To date, my understanding of open source software is that it expresses no warranty at all. I'm unclear on what basis someone would be held libel in a legal action.
Inquiring Minds Want To Know
Steve Punte
Candlelight Software
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
Please note that axkit's core dev list is axkit-dev@xml.apache.org or
axkit-devel@axkit.org (note the extra "el" :-). I've had to forward all
mails so far, so if you could all change follow ups that would be great.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@xml.apache.org>
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
Please note that axkit's core dev list is axkit-dev@xml.apache.org or
axkit-devel@axkit.org (note the extra "el" :-). I've had to forward all
mails so far, so if you could all change follow ups that would be great.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
Please note that axkit's core dev list is axkit-dev@xml.apache.org or
axkit-devel@axkit.org (note the extra "el" :-). I've had to forward all
mails so far, so if you could all change follow ups that would be great.
Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
Please note that axkit's core dev list is axkit-dev@xml.apache.org or
axkit-devel@axkit.org (note the extra "el" :-). I've had to forward all
mails so far, so if you could all change follow ups that would be great.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org