You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org> on 2002/11/10 08:48:37 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Hi everyone:
Following on fro the Avalon PMC thead, I spent a good part of last night
reading through a bunch of the PMC chartering proposal in the board
minutes (http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar.html) and based
on that content, I've put together a draft resolution for discussion. I
think it is useful to circulate this draft as early as possible for two
reasons - firstly, there is the subject of scope that is central to the
Avalon community; and secondly, the Apache Board Meeting is on the 18
... i.e. eight days from now.
Working forwards from today:
Sunday 10 November (today)
* Start discussion on a resolution
Wednesday 13 November
* Finalize a resolution
* Incorporate feedback from the Apache Board
* Close the list of named PMC members
* Naming of the Chair
Thursday 14 November
* Initiation of a [VOTE]
* Majority vote limited to Avalon comitters
* 72 hour vote (3 day) duration
Saturday 16 November
* Vote count and notification of results.
Sunday 17 November
* Formal submisssion to the resolution to the board.
Monday 18 November
* Apache Board Meeting
As you can see, we have basically four days to discuss and turn over a
proposal. Within that time we need to sort out a nomination for proposed
chair, and get the list of potential PMC member established.
To kick off this process I've prepared an initial draft of a resolution
for the formation of an Avalon PMC. In the following text the formal
resolutions are indented and proceeded by a non-legal summary outlining
the purpose of each resolution. Where relevant I've attempted to
indicate resolutions that are more administrative in nature as opposed
to resolutions that are more directly relevant to the Avalon community.
====================================================================
DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR AN AVALON PMC
====================================================================
The draft resolution starts of with a boilerplate context statement.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
and maintenance of open-source software related to component and
service management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
The first resolution handles the establishment of an Avalon PMC as a
formally recognized entity within Apache.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Avalon PMC", be and
hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
and be it further
This resolution declares the scope of the Avalon PMC. This resolution is
directly relevant at an operational level because it restricts the scope
of our activities. The key phrase is "component and service management".
RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
for the creation and maintenance of software related to component
and service management, based on software licensed to the
Foundation; and be it further
This resolution creates a new board position of Avalon VP which ensures
that Avalon is represented at the top-level of Apache, and that the
board, through the VP, can assure accountability of the Avalon PMC and
project.
RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Avalon" be and
hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the
direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the
Avalon PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
Avalon PMC; and be it further
The next resolution is the appointment of the Avalon PMC members. This
resolution is important for a number of reasons - it provides a higher
level of legal protection to members than available to a committer, and,
it declares the set of people who will ultimately address the tasks
handed down by the board (definition of structure, code migration,
rationalization, etc). The intent is to include the spectrum of active
committers on Avalon. Suffice to say, if your a committer and you want
to get engeged in the future of Avalon, please include your name below.
Based on posts on the Avalon PMC subject from yesterday, it is safe to
assume that the list already includes Nicola and myself. I would also
like to see representatives from both the Jakarta PMC and the Incubator
PMC, at least during the initial transition period.
RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
<list-of-people/>
This resolution is the appointment of PMC Chair, and the appointment of
that individual to the post of Avalon VP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that <name-of-chair/> be
and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
successor is appointed; and be it further
The next three resolutions are directives from the board. Two of these
resolutions concern the Avalon PMC and one resolution concerns the
Jakarta PMC. The first of these directives is largely boilerplate
content that covers the establishment of a functional structure. I would
expect to see the policy/bylaws side of this largely driven by the work
on-going within the Incubator project.
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
and be it further
The secondary directive is based on an interpritation of the board
requirements based on Greg's recommendations and Nicola's comments from
yesterday concerning Jakarta Avalon content migration and rationalization.
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
Avalon subproject; and be it further
The final directive releases the Jakarta PMC of its responsibilities
related to the Jakarta Avalon sub-project.
RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Jakarta
Avalon sub-project and encumbered upon the Jakarta PMC are
hereafter discharged.
Ok, fire away :-)
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi Leo:
Some in-line comments relating to scope and the question of PMC Chair ...
>PROJECT SCOPE
>-------------
>
>
>>This resolution declares the scope of the Avalon PMC. This resolution is
>>directly relevant at an operational level because it restricts the scope
>>of our activities. The key phrase is "component and service management".
>>
>>RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
>>for the creation and maintenance of software related to component
>>and service management, based on software licensed to the
>>Foundation; and be it further
>>
>>
>
>here, the wording is very important I think.
>
>loose comments:
>- there is no mentioning of Java; which is good IMO: it allows for the
>C# impl for example
>
That was the intent.
>- there is no mentioning of the project being about design and
>documentation (which is in the current charter); I dunno whether there
>should be
>
The putting in-place of a charter is a post resolution action.
I.e. once the Avalon PMC exists, it can work on definition of the charter.
>- what constitutes a component or a service is vague and will be more
>vague in the future; can't think of an alternative right now
>- what does 'management' mean? MX4J is about one kind of 'component
>management'....
>
A charter can further qualify that defintion.
>
>
>Things going out-of-scope
>-------------------------
>There is no longer any kind of mention of a shared module repository.
>This means that all current avalon-hosted 'shared modules' should be
>eventually placed under the control of a different PMC. Likely
>candidates for this are
>
>- the Apache Commons PMC
>- the Incubator PMC
>- the Jakarta PMC
>- a to-be-created PMC
>
>when code is to remain under control of the Jakarta PMC, it is likely to
>be placed in the Jakarta Commons subproject; alternatively, a new
>Jakarta subproject could be created to host it. Given current
>restructuring taking place apache-wide and the attempts at slimming down
>Jakarta, I think the last option is unlikely.
>
>how the code will exactly end up when donated to and accepted by
>Incubator and/or Commons is not quite clear yet. Both projects have an
>active avalon committer on the PMC (Nicola resp. Peter) and are
>amendable to taking in some of the stuff currently in the Avalon
>subproject IIUC, so things should go as smoothly as possible :)
>
>A to-be-created PMC could be the best way to manage some of the biggest
>and mature largely avalon-independent codebases we currently have or
>some of the full-fledged applications we currently host (ie a Logkit
>PMC).
>
>Note the code that will go 'out of scope' under the current wording is
>_a lot_, which I think might roughly include:
>- all of jakarta-avalon-apps, save the demos
>- all of jakarta-avalon-cornerstone
>- all of jakarta-avalon-logkit
>- a lot of jakarta-avalon-excalibur
>
>thus leaving just
>- jakarta-avalon
>- jakarta-avalon-phoenix
>- parts of jakarta-avalon-excalibur
>
>This is not neccessarily bad (I think it's a real good idea :), but an
>important implication of the current wording to point out.
>
In my opinion its a correct assessment of the implications of the scope
statement.
>MEMBERS
>-------
>
>
>>The next resolution is the appointment of the Avalon PMC members. This
>>resolution is important for a number of reasons - it provides a higher
>>level of legal protection to members than available to a committer, and,
>>it declares the set of people who will ultimately address the tasks
>>handed down by the board (definition of structure, code migration,
>>rationalization, etc). The intent is to include the spectrum of active
>>committers on Avalon. Suffice to say, if your a committer and you want
>>to get engeged in the future of Avalon, please include your name below.
>>Based on posts on the Avalon PMC subject from yesterday, it is safe to
>>assume that the list already includes Nicola and myself. I would also
>>like to see representatives from both the Jakarta PMC and the Incubator
>>PMC, at least during the initial transition period.
>>
>>RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
>>are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
>>
>><list-of-people/>
>>
>>
>
>I think we should have an opt-in list for current avalon committers. I
>believe the defacto emeritus committers or the not 'active' committers
>will be responsible enough to not opt in, and furthermore believe having
>a PMC composed of the committers is a good idea.
>
>I think that should a committer wish to challenge the opting-in of
>anyone on this list, such challenge should be made via private e-mail
>between all committers, and not on avalon-dev.
>
>Current proposed <list-of-people/> (in no particular order) based on
>opt-in:
>
>* Nicola Ken Barozzi
>* Stephen McConnell
>* Leo Sutic
>* Leo Simons
>* Paul Hammant
>
>An alternative is opt-out, but we then place an obligation on people
>like Fede and Jon to respond...whom I am guessing don't want to be on an
>Avalon PMC.
>
>
>CHAIR
>-----
>
>
>>This resolution is the appointment of PMC Chair, and the appointment of
>>that individual to the post of Avalon VP.
>>
>>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that <name-of-chair/> be
>>and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
>>to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
>>Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
>>resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
>>successor is appointed; and be it further
>>
>>
>
>How to decide who we would like to be the Chair/VP is not clear to me.
>Should we even make a recommendation or is this something the board will
>figure out on its own?
>
>
The resolution requires that a chair be named. Towards this end, I
would suggest that committers who want to include themselves on the PMC,
also make it know if they are willing to serve as chair. If nobody
wants to take this on, I will voluntee for the job, however, I think
that there are better candidates on this list. In the longer term (post
establishment), I think it would be an interesting idea to rotate the
chair - i.e. a three month duration, then over to someone else from the
PMC (could be benefital in building awarness and contacts with the
Board, and greater sence of community).
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 08:44, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> <snip/>
>
>>>Things going out-of-scope
>>>-------------------------
>>>There is no longer any kind of mention of a shared module repository.
>>>This means that all current avalon-hosted 'shared modules' should be
>>>eventually placed under the control of a different PMC. Likely
>>>candidates for this are
>>
> <snip/>
>
>>>- the Incubator PMC
>>
>>I deem it unlikely; if the component is live code with live Apache
>>committers on it, there is no need to incubate it.
>
> I wasn't thinking of the components per se, some stuff in avalon-apps
> (like the OpenORB code (which the corba stuff kind is or will merge with
> or whatever), AvalonDB, Rana's FTP server) seems like it could
> potentially warrant several top-level projects; the Incubator is a nice
> place for those to build momentum, is it not?
Ok, correct.
* For OpenORB I've already been contacted, it should be doable.
* AvalonDB... dunno the status, I see that there is a
http://axion.tigris.org/ on tigris, what about cooperation? (Jason is
listed as a dev there, maybe he has interest in Avalonizing)
* Rana's FTP server seems a good candidate. We need someone to cater for
it there though, any volunteers?
> <snip/>
>
>>>- the Jakarta PMC
>>
>>Avalon components never were able to go to Jakarta Commons, I don't see
>>why it will change.
>
> there's the decoupled materials that you (et al) already moved there; we
> should recongize that should not remain around with us indefinately.
Sorry, I don't understand, could you please rephrase?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 08:44, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
<snip/>
> > Things going out-of-scope
> > -------------------------
> > There is no longer any kind of mention of a shared module repository.
> > This means that all current avalon-hosted 'shared modules' should be
> > eventually placed under the control of a different PMC. Likely
> > candidates for this are
<snip/>
> > - the Incubator PMC
>
> I deem it unlikely; if the component is live code with live Apache
> committers on it, there is no need to incubate it.
I wasn't thinking of the components per se, some stuff in avalon-apps
(like the OpenORB code (which the corba stuff kind is or will merge with
or whatever), AvalonDB, Rana's FTP server) seems like it could
potentially warrant several top-level projects; the Incubator is a nice
place for those to build momentum, is it not?
nevermind, though.
<snip/>
> > - the Jakarta PMC
>
> Avalon components never were able to go to Jakarta Commons, I don't see
> why it will change.
there's the decoupled materials that you (et al) already moved there; we
should recongize that should not remain around with us indefinately.
<snip/>
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 08:48, Stephen McConnell wrote:
<snip/>
> Things going out-of-scope
> -------------------------
> There is no longer any kind of mention of a shared module repository.
> This means that all current avalon-hosted 'shared modules' should be
> eventually placed under the control of a different PMC. Likely
> candidates for this are
>
> - the Apache Commons PMC
There has already been a proposal also on that list, and it seems it's
the most likely; Turbine developers basically agree on it and could do
the same with their stuff :-)
> - the Incubator PMC
I deem it unlikely; if the component is live code with live Apache
committers on it, there is no need to incubate it.
Incubator it mainly for outer codebases coming in apache and new efforts
starting almost anew.
> - the Jakarta PMC
Avalon components never were able to go to Jakarta Commons, I don't see
why it will change.
> - a to-be-created PMC
Eventually, if we will se a need... I don't yet.
<snip/>
> CHAIR
> -----
>
>>This resolution is the appointment of PMC Chair, and the appointment of
>>that individual to the post of Avalon VP.
>>
>>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that <name-of-chair/> be
>>and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
>>to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
>>Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
>>resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
>>successor is appointed; and be it further
>
>
> How to decide who we would like to be the Chair/VP is not clear to me.
> Should we even make a recommendation or is this something the board will
> figure out on its own?
I'd make every proposed PMC member vote on a name they decide, see if
the most voted take up the job, else GOTO 10.
<snip/>
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 08:48, Stephen McConnell wrote:
<snip/>
PROPOSAL TIMETABLE
------------------
As several committers have expressed concern about the short timetable,
I think we should extend it, unless the board disagrees. Like Pete said,
there's no harm in taking an extra month.
> ====================================================================
> DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR AN AVALON PMC
> ====================================================================
INTRODUCTORY STUFF
------------------
> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
> of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
> establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
> and maintenance of open-source software related to component and
> service management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
> Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Avalon PMC", be and
> hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
> and be it further
no comment...'standard' formal 'legalese' stuff :)
PROJECT SCOPE
-------------
> This resolution declares the scope of the Avalon PMC. This resolution is
> directly relevant at an operational level because it restricts the scope
> of our activities. The key phrase is "component and service management".
>
> RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
> for the creation and maintenance of software related to component
> and service management, based on software licensed to the
> Foundation; and be it further
here, the wording is very important I think.
loose comments:
- there is no mentioning of Java; which is good IMO: it allows for the
C# impl for example
- there is no mentioning of the project being about design and
documentation (which is in the current charter); I dunno whether there
should be
- what constitutes a component or a service is vague and will be more
vague in the future; can't think of an alternative right now
- what does 'management' mean? MX4J is about one kind of 'component
management'....
Things going out-of-scope
-------------------------
There is no longer any kind of mention of a shared module repository.
This means that all current avalon-hosted 'shared modules' should be
eventually placed under the control of a different PMC. Likely
candidates for this are
- the Apache Commons PMC
- the Incubator PMC
- the Jakarta PMC
- a to-be-created PMC
when code is to remain under control of the Jakarta PMC, it is likely to
be placed in the Jakarta Commons subproject; alternatively, a new
Jakarta subproject could be created to host it. Given current
restructuring taking place apache-wide and the attempts at slimming down
Jakarta, I think the last option is unlikely.
how the code will exactly end up when donated to and accepted by
Incubator and/or Commons is not quite clear yet. Both projects have an
active avalon committer on the PMC (Nicola resp. Peter) and are
amendable to taking in some of the stuff currently in the Avalon
subproject IIUC, so things should go as smoothly as possible :)
A to-be-created PMC could be the best way to manage some of the biggest
and mature largely avalon-independent codebases we currently have or
some of the full-fledged applications we currently host (ie a Logkit
PMC).
Note the code that will go 'out of scope' under the current wording is
_a lot_, which I think might roughly include:
- all of jakarta-avalon-apps, save the demos
- all of jakarta-avalon-cornerstone
- all of jakarta-avalon-logkit
- a lot of jakarta-avalon-excalibur
thus leaving just
- jakarta-avalon
- jakarta-avalon-phoenix
- parts of jakarta-avalon-excalibur
This is not neccessarily bad (I think it's a real good idea :), but an
important implication of the current wording to point out.
VICE PRESIDENT
--------------
> This resolution creates a new board position of Avalon VP which ensures
> that Avalon is represented at the top-level of Apache, and that the
> board, through the VP, can assure accountability of the Avalon PMC and
> project.
>
> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Avalon" be and
> hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the
> direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the
> Avalon PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
> of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
> Avalon PMC; and be it further
no comment...'standard' stuff :)
MEMBERS
-------
> The next resolution is the appointment of the Avalon PMC members. This
> resolution is important for a number of reasons - it provides a higher
> level of legal protection to members than available to a committer, and,
> it declares the set of people who will ultimately address the tasks
> handed down by the board (definition of structure, code migration,
> rationalization, etc). The intent is to include the spectrum of active
> committers on Avalon. Suffice to say, if your a committer and you want
> to get engeged in the future of Avalon, please include your name below.
> Based on posts on the Avalon PMC subject from yesterday, it is safe to
> assume that the list already includes Nicola and myself. I would also
> like to see representatives from both the Jakarta PMC and the Incubator
> PMC, at least during the initial transition period.
>
> RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
> are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
>
> <list-of-people/>
I think we should have an opt-in list for current avalon committers. I
believe the defacto emeritus committers or the not 'active' committers
will be responsible enough to not opt in, and furthermore believe having
a PMC composed of the committers is a good idea.
I think that should a committer wish to challenge the opting-in of
anyone on this list, such challenge should be made via private e-mail
between all committers, and not on avalon-dev.
Current proposed <list-of-people/> (in no particular order) based on
opt-in:
* Nicola Ken Barozzi
* Stephen McConnell
* Leo Sutic
* Leo Simons
* Paul Hammant
An alternative is opt-out, but we then place an obligation on people
like Fede and Jon to respond...whom I am guessing don't want to be on an
Avalon PMC.
CHAIR
-----
> This resolution is the appointment of PMC Chair, and the appointment of
> that individual to the post of Avalon VP.
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that <name-of-chair/> be
> and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
> to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
> Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
> resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
> successor is appointed; and be it further
How to decide who we would like to be the Chair/VP is not clear to me.
Should we even make a recommendation or is this something the board will
figure out on its own?
RESPONSIBILITIES
----------------
> The next three resolutions are directives from the board. Two of these
> resolutions concern the Avalon PMC and one resolution concerns the
> Jakarta PMC. The first of these directives is largely boilerplate
> content that covers the establishment of a functional structure. I would
> expect to see the policy/bylaws side of this largely driven by the work
> on-going within the Incubator project.
>
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
> development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
> and be it further
>
> The secondary directive is based on an interpritation of the board
> requirements based on Greg's recommendations and Nicola's comments from
> yesterday concerning Jakarta Avalon content migration and rationalization.
>
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
> Avalon subproject; and be it further
>
> The final directive releases the Jakarta PMC of its responsibilities
> related to the Jakarta Avalon sub-project.
>
> RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Jakarta
> Avalon sub-project and encumbered upon the Jakarta PMC are
> hereafter discharged.
no comment...'standard' stuff :)
cheers,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 05:35 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> alphabetical list of the committers that have so far opted to be on the
> PMC:
>
> * Nicola Ken Barozzi
> * Marcus Crafter
> * Peter Donald
> * Paul Hammant
> * Berin Loritsch
> * Stephen McConnell
> * Leo Sutic
> * Leo Simons
> * Jeff Turner
> * Carsten Ziegeler
* Peter Royal
-pete
--
peter royal -> proyal@apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
alphabetical list of the committers that have so far opted to be on the
PMC:
* Nicola Ken Barozzi
* Marcus Crafter
* Peter Donald
* Paul Hammant
* Berin Loritsch
* Stephen McConnell
* Leo Sutic
* Leo Simons
* Jeff Turner
* Carsten Ziegeler
cheers,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 18:20, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Could the following people please post to the list their
> position with respect to taking on the job:
>
> * Nicola Ken Barozzi
> * Stephen McConnell <-- ready if necessary
> * Leo Sutic
> * Leo Simons <-- ready if neccessary
> * Paul Hammant
> * Marcus Crafter
> * Carsten Ziegeler
missing:
* Peter Royal
further comment: I would be willing to fulfill the role if there are no
other acceptable candidates. I have no particular desire to act as a VP
but I understand the need for one. I think I'd be able to do a
reasonable job.
However I feel there are others that are better suited for this role
than me, especially for the first few months in starting things up. I
won't say right now that I'd actually like Nicola to take the spot
because I don't want to pressure him into volunteering, busy man as he
is :D
cheers,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Following Pete Royal's email - the list of potenail PMC members, and
therfore candidate for the volunteering for chair is updated. Also, I
want to
say that I'm comfortable with Leo's proposal of Nicola as chair.
Cheers, Steve.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> Following on from the other emails in this Avaon PMC
> thread, we need to select a chair for the PMC. The Chair
> must be from the list of opt-in PMC members.
> I've prepared the following list showing the name of people
> on the proposed chair list. If members feel ready to take
> on the role of chair, could you please post a reply to this
> list. I figure the number of "candidates" will probably be
> small and that this should not be dramtic process. I would
> also like to restate that in the longer term I would like to
> some sort of model where the chair is a job that is passed
> around - but that a subject for the PMC once established.
>
> Could the following people please post to the list their
> position with respect to taking on the job:
>
* Nicola Ken Barozzi <-- proposed by Leo Sutric
* Stephen McConnell <-- ready if necessary
* Leo Sutic
* Leo Simons
* Paul Hammant
* Marcus Crafter
* Carsten Ziegeler
* Pete Royal
>
> If you have an interest in the role of chair and have not
> already opted-in to the PMC, don't worry, its not too late.
> All you need to do is to post a message to the list requesting
> participation to the PMC, together with a note concerning your
> ambissions with respect to the implicit role of "VP Avalon".
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 19:20, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
>>>This is all a bit premature though as we do not have all
>>>committers in this list yet. Berlin is busy elsewhere (his
>>>"I'll be busy email" ?) PeterD is not here yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Based on Berlin's email he's scaling down participation for the moment.
>>
>>
>
>who's this Berlin guy? :P
>
>
Oh zutt - he told me off for doing that once before.
There is just something in my brain that auto types the "l" after typing
Berin.
:-(
>
>
>>However, I've left a message for Berin to give me a call so that I can
>>update him on what's going on. Bottom line is that the PMC list can be
>>revised. The process we are talking about here is a process to get
>>things going - its not setting in concrete and definative list of who is
>>on the PMC. I don't think anyone here would oppose the introduction of
>>Berlin to the PMC at a later stage.
>>
>>
>
>it's a beautiful city 'n all, but.......just kiddin' :D
>
>
Double zutt!
>>As for Pete - well, I'm hope Pete
>>will join in because an Avalon PMC would not be quite right without him.
>>
>>
>
>+1. Not having pete on the PMC means the admirable concept of "all
>active committers on the PMC" goes completely out of the window. Besides
>that, I think he's the person with the most experience and expertise in
>these matters around here @ avalon so I think we'll really miss his
>input if he does not opt in.
>
>
I agree 100% - but I think in my case I have to go a step further. I've
been giving Pete a rather tought time over the last few months - some of
it justified, but a more than reasonable amount was not. For that my
sincerely apologies to Pete.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>
>> On the other hand, that's an option for Pete. Pete is certainly aware
>>that his has that option and there is a schedule. Furthermore, moving
>>forward on this without Pete does not preclude the potential for Pete
>>joing the PMC at a later time - I'm also confident that everyone would
>>be very supporting of this.
>>
>>
>
>again +1. It's up to him.
>
>cheers,
>
>- Leo
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 19:20, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >This is all a bit premature though as we do not have all
> >committers in this list yet. Berlin is busy elsewhere (his
> >"I'll be busy email" ?) PeterD is not here yet.
> >
>
> Based on Berlin's email he's scaling down participation for the moment.
who's this Berlin guy? :P
> However, I've left a message for Berin to give me a call so that I can
> update him on what's going on. Bottom line is that the PMC list can be
> revised. The process we are talking about here is a process to get
> things going - its not setting in concrete and definative list of who is
> on the PMC. I don't think anyone here would oppose the introduction of
> Berlin to the PMC at a later stage.
it's a beautiful city 'n all, but.......just kiddin' :D
> As for Pete - well, I'm hope Pete
> will join in because an Avalon PMC would not be quite right without him.
+1. Not having pete on the PMC means the admirable concept of "all
active committers on the PMC" goes completely out of the window. Besides
that, I think he's the person with the most experience and expertise in
these matters around here @ avalon so I think we'll really miss his
input if he does not opt in.
> On the other hand, that's an option for Pete. Pete is certainly aware
> that his has that option and there is a schedule. Furthermore, moving
> forward on this without Pete does not preclude the potential for Pete
> joing the PMC at a later time - I'm also confident that everyone would
> be very supporting of this.
again +1. It's up to him.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
>>* Nicola Ken Barozzi
>>
>>
>
>4 chair.
>
Noted.
>
>This is all a bit premature though as we do not have all
>committers in this list yet. Berlin is busy elsewhere (his
>"I'll be busy email" ?) PeterD is not here yet.
>
Based on Berlin's email he's scaling down participation for the moment.
However, I've left a message for Berin to give me a call so that I can
update him on what's going on. Bottom line is that the PMC list can be
revised. The process we are talking about here is a process to get
things going - its not setting in concrete and definative list of who is
on the PMC. I don't think anyone here would oppose the introduction of
Berlin to the PMC at a later stage. As for Pete - well, I'm hope Pete
will join in because an Avalon PMC would not be quite right without him.
On the other hand, that's an option for Pete. Pete is certainly aware
that his has that option and there is a schedule. Furthermore, moving
forward on this without Pete does not preclude the potential for Pete
joing the PMC at a later time - I'm also confident that everyone would
be very supporting of this.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>- Paul
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Everything you'll ever need on one web page
>from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
>http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
> * Nicola Ken Barozzi
4 chair.
This is all a bit premature though as we do not have all committers in this list yet. Berlin is
busy elsewhere (his "I'll be busy email" ?) PeterD is not here yet.
- Paul
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 11:55, Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * Note that we do not and cannot vote on who will be PMC Chair; that is
>>> up to the apache board. This thread is about supplying the board with
>>> additional information that might help them in making that decision.
>>>
>>
>>
>> follow-up was in another thread:
>>
>> On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 17:44, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Stephen J. McConnell wrote:
>>>
>>> > Based on Leo's email concerning our obligations (or more correctly
>>> > non-obligation) on chair selection, I have eliminated the action
>>>
>>
>> from
>>
>>
>>> > the schedule.
>>>
>>> I believe that most board members (I can confirm at least two at the
>>> moment) would prefer that activity towards resolving this action
>>> continue. Based on my experience with Jakarta, I view it hightly
>>>
>>
>> likely
>>
>>
>>> that should a suitable chair candidate gain consensus amoungst the
>>> proposed PMC members that this recommendation would be given
>>>
>>
>> significant
>>
>>
>>> weight.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> so lets see if there's consensus......
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>
>>> What follows is an alphabetical list of the committers that have so far
>>> opted to be on the PMC, their willingness to be the PMC Chair if asked:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Person Prepared to be chair?
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Nicola Ken Barozzi yes
>> Marcus Crafter not specified
>> Peter Donald yes
>> Paul Hammant not specified
>> Berin Loritsch yes
>> Stephen McConnell yes
>> Peter Royal not specified
>> Leo Sutic not specified
>> Leo Simons yes
>> Jeff Turner not specified
>> Carsten Ziegeler not specified
>>
>> Leo Sutic, Paul Hammant and Stephen McConnell have indicated they are
>> agreeable to having Nicola Ken Barozzi be the chair. Leo Simons is too.
>>
>> Jason van Zyl (non-committer) has indicated he is agreeable to having
>> Berin Loritsch be the chair.
>>
>> Stephen McConnell has indicated that he is agreeable to having Leo be
>> the chair. He hasn't specified which Leo :)
>>
>>
>
> Sutric !
Woops - has anyone noticed that I have a problem with names?
Sorry Leo!
>
>
> :-)
>
> (who I'd like to see taking a spot as chair one day soon - along with
> yourself )
>
>>
>> Nicola Ken Barozzi so far seems to be the most likely candidate to get
>> consensus. As he has indicated that he is okay with discussion of his
>> candidacy being held in public, I think the logical next step is to see
>> how broad support for having Nicola be chair is?
>>
>
> +1 for Nicolas as chair.
>
> I think the nicola scenario works for a number of reasons - he's sort
> of a loose Avalon person (which sounds a bit odd but its mean
> constructively) - floating here floating there, worked with most of
> us, never got locked into any particular playground - has an
> understanding of the *real* issues that are present, has a picture in
> his head of a united avalon, and has the patience to work though the
> transition. He also wants to resign in three months or so which is a
> very good indicator that he's doing this for all the right reasons.
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
> p.s. Who would love to see a good healthy rotating chair policy so all
> of the people here can get in there and use the oppotunity to take
> avalon that much further - instead of an overhead, a challenge!
>
> :-)
>
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> - Leo
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 11:55, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>
>>* Note that we do not and cannot vote on who will be PMC Chair; that is
>>up to the apache board. This thread is about supplying the board with
>>additional information that might help them in making that decision.
>>
>>
>
>follow-up was in another thread:
>
>On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 17:44, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>
>>Stephen J. McConnell wrote:
>>
>> > Based on Leo's email concerning our obligations (or more correctly
>> > non-obligation) on chair selection, I have eliminated the action
>>
>>
>from
>
>
>> > the schedule.
>>
>>I believe that most board members (I can confirm at least two at the
>>moment) would prefer that activity towards resolving this action
>>continue. Based on my experience with Jakarta, I view it hightly
>>
>>
>likely
>
>
>>that should a suitable chair candidate gain consensus amoungst the
>>proposed PMC members that this recommendation would be given
>>
>>
>significant
>
>
>>weight.
>>
>>
>
>
>so lets see if there's consensus......
>
><snip/>
>
>
>>What follows is an alphabetical list of the committers that have so far
>>opted to be on the PMC, their willingness to be the PMC Chair if asked:
>>
>>
>>
>Person Prepared to be chair?
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Nicola Ken Barozzi yes
>Marcus Crafter not specified
>Peter Donald yes
>Paul Hammant not specified
>Berin Loritsch yes
>Stephen McConnell yes
>Peter Royal not specified
>Leo Sutic not specified
>Leo Simons yes
>Jeff Turner not specified
>Carsten Ziegeler not specified
>
>Leo Sutic, Paul Hammant and Stephen McConnell have indicated they are
>agreeable to having Nicola Ken Barozzi be the chair. Leo Simons is too.
>
>Jason van Zyl (non-committer) has indicated he is agreeable to having
>Berin Loritsch be the chair.
>
>Stephen McConnell has indicated that he is agreeable to having Leo be
>the chair. He hasn't specified which Leo :)
>
>
Sutric !
:-)
(who I'd like to see taking a spot as chair one day soon - along with
yourself )
>
>Nicola Ken Barozzi so far seems to be the most likely candidate to get
>consensus. As he has indicated that he is okay with discussion of his
>candidacy being held in public, I think the logical next step is to see
>how broad support for having Nicola be chair is?
>
+1 for Nicolas as chair.
I think the nicola scenario works for a number of reasons - he's sort of
a loose Avalon person (which sounds a bit odd but its mean
constructively) - floating here floating there, worked with most of us,
never got locked into any particular playground - has an understanding
of the *real* issues that are present, has a picture in his head of a
united avalon, and has the patience to work though the transition. He
also wants to resign in three months or so which is a very good
indicator that he's doing this for all the right reasons.
Cheers, Steve.
p.s. Who would love to see a good healthy rotating chair policy so all
of the people here can get in there and use the oppotunity to take
avalon that much further - instead of an overhead, a challenge!
:-)
>
>cheers,
>
>- Leo
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 11:55, Leo Simons wrote:
> * Note that we do not and cannot vote on who will be PMC Chair; that is
> up to the apache board. This thread is about supplying the board with
> additional information that might help them in making that decision.
follow-up was in another thread:
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 17:44, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Stephen J. McConnell wrote:
>
> > Based on Leo's email concerning our obligations (or more correctly
> > non-obligation) on chair selection, I have eliminated the action
from
> > the schedule.
>
> I believe that most board members (I can confirm at least two at the
> moment) would prefer that activity towards resolving this action
> continue. Based on my experience with Jakarta, I view it hightly
likely
> that should a suitable chair candidate gain consensus amoungst the
> proposed PMC members that this recommendation would be given
significant
> weight.
so lets see if there's consensus......
<snip/>
> What follows is an alphabetical list of the committers that have so far
> opted to be on the PMC, their willingness to be the PMC Chair if asked:
>
Person Prepared to be chair?
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicola Ken Barozzi yes
Marcus Crafter not specified
Peter Donald yes
Paul Hammant not specified
Berin Loritsch yes
Stephen McConnell yes
Peter Royal not specified
Leo Sutic not specified
Leo Simons yes
Jeff Turner not specified
Carsten Ziegeler not specified
Leo Sutic, Paul Hammant and Stephen McConnell have indicated they are
agreeable to having Nicola Ken Barozzi be the chair. Leo Simons is too.
Jason van Zyl (non-committer) has indicated he is agreeable to having
Berin Loritsch be the chair.
Stephen McConnell has indicated that he is agreeable to having Leo be
the chair. He hasn't specified which Leo :)
Nicola Ken Barozzi so far seems to be the most likely candidate to get
consensus. As he has indicated that he is okay with discussion of his
candidacy being held in public, I think the logical next step is to see
how broad support for having Nicola be chair is?
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 05:55, Leo Simons wrote:
> Berin Loritsch yes
My non-binding vote for Avalon PMC chair.
+1
Jason van Zyl
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
* Note that we do not and cannot vote on who will be PMC Chair; that is
up to the apache board. This thread is about supplying the board with
additional information that might help them in making that decision.
* Note also that no-one is in any way obliged to make a statement about
any of this; any person on the PMC is a candidate for the position of
chair regardless of this thread.
---
What follows is an alphabetical list of the committers that have so far
opted to be on the PMC, and adds any statements regarding their
willingness to be the PMC Chair if asked, and additional comments on
their willingness that these committers have made:
Person Prepared to be chair?
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicola Ken Barozzi yes
Marcus Crafter not specified
Peter Donald yes
Paul Hammant not specified
Berin Loritsch yes
Stephen McConnell yes
Leo Sutic not specified
Leo Simons yes
Jeff Turner not specified
Carsten Ziegeler not specified
Additional comments:
* Nicola Ken Barozzi said: "Oh, BTW, I would take up the PMC chair job,
and fulfill the role in the most neutral way possible, as a sort of
Avalon re-incubation process.
I would resign as soon as the "porting" will be done."
* Peter Donald said: "Include me and I would also like to be the
chair."
* Berin Loritsch said: "DO we vote for ourselves? If so count me as a
candidate for Avalon Chair."
* Stephen McConnell said: "ready if necessary"
* Leo Simons said: "I would be willing to fulfill the role if there are
no other acceptable candidates. I have no particular desire to act as a
VP but I understand the need for one. I think I'd be able to do a
reasonable job.
However I feel there are others that are better suited for this role
than me, especially for the first few months in starting things up."
---
best regards,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 19:21, Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>
>>Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Fede,
>>>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>>>I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>>>a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>>>standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>>>what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
>>>>and united but...
>>>>IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>>>moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>>>>It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>sound sarcastic...
>>
>>
>
>it was not intended as such at all. I think it's very important that
>emeritus committers such as yourself participate in discussions such as
>this one.
>
>
just kidding... :P
>
>
>>>This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
>>>of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
>>>list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
>>>
>>>The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
>>>happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
>>>increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
>>
>>
>
>true. The discussion about restructuring jakarta is not happening here;
>it is happening (has happened) on other mailing lists like
>community@apache.org. From those discussions about restructuring jakarta
>(and apache as a whole) came the ideas of making several of the jakarta
>subprojects 'self-managing'.
>You will probably appreciate the fact that (paraphrasing Greg Stein) the
>Jakarta PMC is agreeable to setting up an Avalon PMC, as are the greater
>apache and jakarta communities.
>
>
>
>>If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
>>doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have a
>>different container implementation.
>>
>>
>
>hmm. I can understand why you are seeing things that way.
>
>The way I see it, what is happening now is that multiple 'container
>implementations' (the HTTPD PMC, the Jakarta PMC, the XML PMC, PHP
>PMC....) are being reviewed, and a common framework extracted from those
>(most of the work on this is happening on community@apache.org and
>general@incubat.apache.org). The "new Avalon" will be a 'refactored'
>community centered around that common framework.
>IOW, what I see is the multiple communities that exist at apache coming
>together, exchanging thoughts, deciding on some foundation-wide
>refactoring together. Avalon is one of many projects following that
>general trend.
>
I just meant that "coming together" and "separate PMC" is either
political or a contraddiction.
fede
>
>regards,
>
>- Leo Simons
>
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 19:21, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> >Hi Fede,
> >On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> >>Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >>>I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
> >>>I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
> >>>a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
> >>>standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
> >>>what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
> >>>
> >>I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
> >>and united but...
> >>IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
> >>moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> >>It's Yet Another Mailing List.
> >
> >first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
> >
> sound sarcastic...
it was not intended as such at all. I think it's very important that
emeritus committers such as yourself participate in discussions such as
this one.
> >This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
> >of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
> >list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
> >
> >The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
> >happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
> >increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
> >
> Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
true. The discussion about restructuring jakarta is not happening here;
it is happening (has happened) on other mailing lists like
community@apache.org. From those discussions about restructuring jakarta
(and apache as a whole) came the ideas of making several of the jakarta
subprojects 'self-managing'.
You will probably appreciate the fact that (paraphrasing Greg Stein) the
Jakarta PMC is agreeable to setting up an Avalon PMC, as are the greater
apache and jakarta communities.
> If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
> doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have a
> different container implementation.
hmm. I can understand why you are seeing things that way.
The way I see it, what is happening now is that multiple 'container
implementations' (the HTTPD PMC, the Jakarta PMC, the XML PMC, PHP
PMC....) are being reviewed, and a common framework extracted from those
(most of the work on this is happening on community@apache.org and
general@incubat.apache.org). The "new Avalon" will be a 'refactored'
community centered around that common framework.
IOW, what I see is the multiple communities that exist at apache coming
together, exchanging thoughts, deciding on some foundation-wide
refactoring together. Avalon is one of many projects following that
general trend.
regards,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:01, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> I like that. Don't like avalon.apache.org thou (I know I'm a PITA :).
>
> would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL?
easy enough (and the way that has been recomended).
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
----------------------------------------
Whatever you do will be insignificant,
but it is very important that you do it.
--Gandhi
----------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> That is a group of people 1) legally responsable for the avalon code
>>> 2) directly in contact with the board and the community 3) lead and
>>> manage the decision making process in the Avalon community. This
>>> could not be done by the current Jakarta PMC 'cause 1) they don't
>>> want/can't be legally responsable for all the Jakarta code 2) live 2
>>> levels away for the community 3) do not have time and resource to
>>> lead and manage every community.
>>>
>>> I like that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Me too - and something I really like is that this happening in
>> conjunction with the Incubator, Apache commons, etc. This makes it
>> much easier for the Avalon PMC to pull in support from other places
>> and deal constructively will the migration and reorganization process .
>
>
> The only concern left you shold define first the set of projects under
> the avalon pmc umbrella so you're going to be legally binded only to
> those projects. If you sign in for projects that will be moved to
> different pmcs things could get slightly more complicated, not
> impossible but...
The way the proposed resolution is structured, there is an inconsistency
between the stated scope and the source content. This was intentional.
I think Leo Simons summed this up well in one of his emails concerning
the implications that the scope statement has on the PMCs
responsibilities concerning restructuring. IOW - the first thing that
the PMC needs to focussed on is detailing a charter that while within
the scope declared in the board resolution - qualifies what we mean by
thing like component and services in the context of "component and
service management". This requires a little more that saying "a
component is a coponet based on the Avalon framework" - instead its more
abstract and probably closer to the original proposal ideas put forward
by Stefano when the server project was formed (but leveraging the
benefits of hindsight, and doing it with a full established community).
With a charter that makes things clear and well understood, the next
thing is to look at restructuring. This is probably more complicated
because there is a lot of responsibility we (the community) have to
ensure that we do this properly, with attention to the user community
interests, and at the same time leveraging the groups around as such as
the Incubator and Commons.
Anyway - that's a big subject that needs lots of full and open discussion.
>
>
>>> would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL? I know you
>>> don't probally care so much for the domain name but stating that
>>> would quite help at least for the infostructure guys.
>>
>>
>> Its already been made clear that we can maintain all of the existing
>> URLs (comments from Jakarta and Board members) . We don't want to
>> break anything (code or web links) used by our user community - but
>> there is somethinig new emerging - but that's about a "united avalon"
>> identity - which comes back to the PMCs initatial work on charter etc.
>
>
> what I meant is things should stay in jakarta.apache.org and *only*
> there. I don't think different domain is a good idea. Mainly because
> what you're doing here should apply to *all* apache projects and
> that's just too many names.
There were some comments about this on the reorg or community list
(doon't remember which). My understanding is that the Avalon PMC will
be given the avalon.apache.org space reflecting its status as a
top-level PMC (assuming of course that the current vote is sucessfull).
I think there was also an email in the Avalon-Dev list from the Board
confirming this.
>>
>> On the infrastructure side - are you involved in that at all ?
>
>
> I have friends... :-)
:-)
I will need friends.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>>
>> Cheers, Steve.
>>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> That is a group of people 1) legally responsable for the avalon code
>> 2) directly in contact with the board and the community 3) lead and
>> manage the decision making process in the Avalon community. This
>> could not be done by the current Jakarta PMC 'cause 1) they don't
>> want/can't be legally responsable for all the Jakarta code 2) live 2
>> levels away for the community 3) do not have time and resource to
>> lead and manage every community.
>>
>> I like that.
>
>
>
> Me too - and something I really like is that this happening in
> conjunction with the Incubator, Apache commons, etc. This makes it
> much easier for the Avalon PMC to pull in support from other places
> and deal constructively will the migration and reorganization process .
The only concern left you shold define first the set of projects under
the avalon pmc umbrella so you're going to be legally binded only to
those projects. If you sign in for projects that will be moved to
different pmcs things could get slightly more complicated, not
impossible but...
>> would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL? I know you
>> don't probally care so much for the domain name but stating that
>> would quite help at least for the infostructure guys.
>
> Its already been made clear that we can maintain all of the existing
> URLs (comments from Jakarta and Board members) . We don't want to
> break anything (code or web links) used by our user community - but
> there is somethinig new emerging - but that's about a "united avalon"
> identity - which comes back to the PMCs initatial work on charter etc.
what I meant is things should stay in jakarta.apache.org and *only*
there. I don't think different domain is a good idea. Mainly because
what you're doing here should apply to *all* apache projects and that's
just too many names.
>
> On the infrastructure side - are you involved in that at all ?
I have friends... :-)
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> Anyow could you give me a more specific example of what would be
>>> different in the Jakarta and Avalon PMC?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A PMC by the people, for the people.
>>
>> By this I mean a PMC composed of members of the Avalon community
>> working to better server the members of the Avalon Community, and the
>> development of that community in the context of Apache goals and
>> culture.
>
>
> That is a group of people 1) legally responsable for the avalon code
> 2) directly in contact with the board and the community 3) lead and
> manage the decision making process in the Avalon community. This could
> not be done by the current Jakarta PMC 'cause 1) they don't want/can't
> be legally responsable for all the Jakarta code 2) live 2 levels away
> for the community 3) do not have time and resource to lead and manage
> every community.
>
> I like that.
Me too - and something I really like is that this happening in
conjunction with the Incubator, Apache commons, etc. This makes it much
easier for the Avalon PMC to pull in support from other places and deal
constructively will the migration and reorganization process .
> Don't like avalon.apache.org thou (I know I'm a PITA :).
How about united.apache.org :-)
>
>
> would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL? I know you
> don't probally care so much for the domain name but stating that would
> quite help at least for the infostructure guys.
Its already been made clear that we can maintain all of the existing
URLs (comments from Jakarta and Board members) . We don't want to break
anything (code or web links) used by our user community - but there is
somethinig new emerging - but that's about a "united avalon" identity -
which comes back to the PMCs initatial work on charter etc.
On the infrastructure side - are you involved in that at all ?
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> Anyow could you give me a more specific example of what would be
>> different in the Jakarta and Avalon PMC?
>
>
>
> A PMC by the people, for the people.
>
> By this I mean a PMC composed of members of the Avalon community
> working to better server the members of the Avalon Community, and the
> development of that community in the context of Apache goals and culture.
That is a group of people 1) legally responsable for the avalon code 2)
directly in contact with the board and the community 3) lead and manage
the decision making process in the Avalon community. This could not be
done by the current Jakarta PMC 'cause 1) they don't want/can't be
legally responsable for all the Jakarta code 2) live 2 levels away for
the community 3) do not have time and resource to lead and manage every
community.
I like that. Don't like avalon.apache.org thou (I know I'm a PITA :).
would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL? I know you don't
probally care so much for the domain name but stating that would quite
help at least for the infostructure guys.
fede
>
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is totally true - our area of interest and scope of concern is
>> Avalon, not Jakarta.
>>
>> :-)
>
>
> these words enforce my feeling you're "forking".
:-)
As Pete pointed out in an earlier reply, a context was established under
the reorg list during which the Avalon project was referenced on several
occations. During this process, members of the Jakarta PMC and the
Apache Board encoraged the Avalon community members to assess the
project and its relationship to the overall Apache community. Throught
this process there has been a constructive relationship betwen this
community and its PMC with the open exchange of opinions, concerns and
constructive comments as we have moved forward. I think that on review
you will find a solid and consistent platform of people working together
towards a common objective.
Two threads that I make good brackground reading include the following:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103681137000001&r=1&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103691454800002&r=1&w=2
>
>>
>>>
>>> If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you
>>> are doing is forking the framework specification because you want to
>>> have a different container implementation.
>>>
>>> just my thought
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If you review the threads on the Avalon PMC, I think you will arrive
>> at the conclusion that the avalon framework is the fundamental
>> backbone, however, I think you will also find that discussions about
>> the framework, containers, etc., are largely technical in nature and
>> as such are matters for the committer comunity. What the PMC has to
>> address is a charter, rationalization, and overarching objective of
>> deliving good quality open source solutions within our area of concern.
>>
>> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> Not sure I got your point here. Maybe I've used the wrong example. Let
> the code speak... :)
>
> public abstract class JakartaProject { /** author: Jakrta PMC **/
> /*this could extend ApacheProject but... */
> public static final boolean isOpenSouce = true;
> public static final String licence = ApacheProject.APACHE_LICENCE;
>
> public abstract String getName();
> public abstract String getCharter();
>
> public synchronized void addCvsCommitter(Developer developer) {
> /* place reference implementation here */
> }
> }
>
> public class Avalon extend JakartaProject { /** author: Avalon
> committers **/
> .....
> public synchronized void addCvsCommitter(Developer developer) {
> /* place avalon optimized implementation here */
> }
> }
>
> What you're saying is there are methods in the JakartaProject class
> that are final and you don't like so you don't want to extend
> JakartaProject anymore.
Actually, extension of the Jakarta project was the subject of a thread
on the rorg list which subsequently migrated to the Avalon dev list -
however, the reality of building the notion of a sub-structure proved
productive. As discussions continued (involving the Jakarata PMC,
Incubator PMC and members of the Board), the concept of an Avalon PMC
become more focussed. I think you will will find lots of evidence of
loyalty from member of Avalon towards Jakarta and from Jakarta towards
Avalon in both the process and the vision (as opposed to forks or
approaches). This is something that involves several communities and I'm
very please to say that their representation in this process has been
suprisingly open.
>
> What I'm saying is to take away the final word and overwrite them. If
> the getNewCvsModule method implemented in the JakartaProject class is
> synchronized and it's too damn slow then write a multithreaded one for
> all subclass to benefit.
>
> I'm code addicted... sorry about that! :)
:-)
Think of this more along the lines of refactoring a part of your code base.
>
> Anyow could you give me a more specific example of what would be
> different in the Jakarta and Avalon PMC?
A PMC by the people, for the people.
By this I mean a PMC composed of members of the Avalon community working
to better server the members of the Avalon Community, and the
development of that community in the context of Apache goals and culture.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
>
>
> This is totally true - our area of interest and scope of concern is
> Avalon, not Jakarta.
>
> :-)
these words enforce my feeling you're "forking".
>
>>
>> If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
>> doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have
>> a different container implementation.
>>
>> just my thought
>
>
>
> If you review the threads on the Avalon PMC, I think you will arrive
> at the conclusion that the avalon framework is the fundamental
> backbone, however, I think you will also find that discussions about
> the framework, containers, etc., are largely technical in nature and
> as such are matters for the committer comunity. What the PMC has to
> address is a charter, rationalization, and overarching objective of
> deliving good quality open source solutions within our area of concern.
>
> Cheers, Steve.
Not sure I got your point here. Maybe I've used the wrong example. Let
the code speak... :)
public abstract class JakartaProject { /** author: Jakrta PMC **/ /*this
could extend ApacheProject but... */
public static final boolean isOpenSouce = true;
public static final String licence = ApacheProject.APACHE_LICENCE;
public abstract String getName();
public abstract String getCharter();
public synchronized void addCvsCommitter(Developer developer) {
/* place reference implementation here */
}
}
public class Avalon extend JakartaProject { /** author: Avalon
committers **/
.....
public synchronized void addCvsCommitter(Developer developer) {
/* place avalon optimized implementation here */
}
}
What you're saying is there are methods in the JakartaProject class that
are final and you don't like so you don't want to extend JakartaProject
anymore.
What I'm saying is to take away the final word and overwrite them. If
the getNewCvsModule method implemented in the JakartaProject class is
synchronized and it's too damn slow then write a multithreaded one for
all subclass to benefit.
I'm code addicted... sorry about that! :)
Anyow could you give me a more specific example of what would be
different in the Jakarta and Avalon PMC?
fede
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
>> Hi Fede,
>>
>> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>>> strong and united but...
>>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any*
>>> better. It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>>
>>
>>
>> first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
>>
> sound sarcastic...
sounds provocative ;-)
>
>
>> This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
>> of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
>> list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
>>
>> The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
>> happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
>> increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
>>
> Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
This is totally true - our area of interest and scope of concern is
Avalon, not Jakarta.
:-)
>
> If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
> doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have
> a different container implementation.
>
> just my thought
If you review the threads on the Avalon PMC, I think you will arrive at
the conclusion that the avalon framework is the fundamental backbone,
however, I think you will also find that discussions about the
framework, containers, etc., are largely technical in nature and as such
are matters for the committer comunity. What the PMC has to address is
a charter, rationalization, and overarching objective of deliving good
quality open source solutions within our area of concern.
Cheers, Steve.
>
> fede
>
>
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> - Leo Simons
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>Hi Fede,
>
>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>
>>Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
>>and united but...
>>IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>>It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>
>>
>
>first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
>
sound sarcastic...
>This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
>of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
>list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
>
>The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
>happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
>increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
>
Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have a
different container implementation.
just my thought
fede
>
>best regards,
>
>- Leo Simons
>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
Hi Fede,
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
> >I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
> >I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
> >a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
> >standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
> >what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
> >
> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
> and united but...
> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
best regards,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>>
>>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>>> strong and united but...
>>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any*
>>> better. It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Federico:
>>
>> I totally and completely agree with your sentiments here.
>>
>> If we look back over the discussions on this subject there have been
>> a broad spectrum of reasons reflecting the breadth of the Avalon
>> community and beyond that - those communities impacted by Avalon (our
>> user community, the Apache Board, Jakarta, etc.). The notion of
>> "escalation" means different things to different people - for myself
>> it is something strongly related to the notion of our right to "self
>> determination". For others it is related to questions of
>> "accountability", "visibility", "liability" - the list goes on.
>
>
> I think you used the magic word here... visibility.
> I +1000 to give more self determination and accountability to all
> Jakarta projects (which of course does not mean 1 PMC each) and -1000
> to give more visibility to projects that are not mature yet.
I happy to see your +1000 on the subjects of self determination and
accountability.
It appears we share a couple of common interests.
:-)
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>
>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>> strong and united but...
>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>
>
>
> Federico:
>
> I totally and completely agree with your sentiments here.
>
> If we look back over the discussions on this subject there have been a
> broad spectrum of reasons reflecting the breadth of the Avalon
> community and beyond that - those communities impacted by Avalon (our
> user community, the Apache Board, Jakarta, etc.). The notion of
> "escalation" means different things to different people - for myself
> it is something strongly related to the notion of our right to "self
> determination". For others it is related to questions of
> "accountability", "visibility", "liability" - the list goes on.
I think you used the magic word here... visibility.
I +1000 to give more self determination and accountability to all
Jakarta projects (which of course does not mean 1 PMC each) and -1000 to
give more visibility to projects that are not mature yet.
This is probally due to my personal definition of "top level project".
fede
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>
> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
> strong and united but...
> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
Federico:
I totally and completely agree with your sentiments here.
If we look back over the discussions on this subject there have been a
broad spectrum of reasons reflecting the breadth of the Avalon community
and beyond that - those communities impacted by Avalon (our user
community, the Apache Board, Jakarta, etc.). The notion of "escalation"
means different things to different people - for myself it is something
strongly related to the notion of our right to "self determination".
For others it is related to questions of "accountability", "visibility",
"liability" - the list goes on.
As you said - there is not one single reason - in effect there are many
reasons, and when brought together, these collective set of interests
will set the tone, direction, and potential for the evolution of a
united Avalon.
Cheers, Steve.
>
> fede
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
> >I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
> >a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
> >standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
> >what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>
> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
> and united but...
> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC
There is one. Essentially none of the committers are protected by Apache
because we are not all PMC members. Apache was designed to work with
communities structured more like HTTPD (however even non-PMC comitters are
not protected over there). Thats the only reason that this change is
occuring.
> and
> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
agreed. It will/should be buisness as usual. The only discussion that will
likely end up on PMC list is about voting people in - any other discussion
will be done on the dev lists. Anyone tries to push through technical
decisions on the PMC list then they are in for a shock ;)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
-------------------------------------------------------------
| Egoism is the drug that soothes the pain of stupidity. |
-------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:12, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> So, if I'm getting this right, you want more control, more indipendence
> over the rules governing the avalon (at large) community right?
> I quite agree on that thou I would prefer to see a proposal to improve
> the community sent to the Jakarta PMC to be voted and adopted by the
> whole jakarta (or apache) community.
> The ability to set up new cvs modules like [jakarta-avalon-*] could (I'm
> not saying it is) be a good thing for all projects.
> If you want to modify commiter access rules just do it. None will ever
> complain if you are more efficient and productive.
Agreed. All we have to do is say we want X and X will happen in 99% of cases.
> My guts tells me there is too much burocracy and politics in this...
your gut would be right.
> damn it it's open source! It's self determination by definition! There
> is no need for institutionalisation.
>
> Ok I sound like ranting now... it's just that I'm sorry to see weeks of
> (code wise) unproductive discussion.
>
> hope I'm making sense...
yep.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*-----------------------------------------------------*
* "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, *
* and proving that there is no need to do so - almost *
* everyone gets busy on the proof." *
* - John Kenneth Galbraith *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>>> strong and united but...
>>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>>> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's about direct accountability to the board.
>>
>> This is what we *have* to agree on in any case, the PMC is just a tool.
>>
>> " ...
>> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
>> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
>> development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
>> and be it further
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
>> with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
>> Avalon subproject;
>> ..."
>
>
> So, if I'm getting this right, you want more control, more indipendence
> over the rules governing the avalon (at large) community right?
IMNHO no. There was a discussion on reorg@apache.org that told us that
we need to be PMC members to have legal protection from the ASF.
This would also make us be accountable directly, and report directly to
the board.
> I quite
> agree on that thou I would prefer to see a proposal to improve the
> community sent to the Jakarta PMC to be voted and adopted by the whole
> jakarta (or apache) community.
> The ability to set up new cvs modules like [jakarta-avalon-*] could (I'm
> not saying it is) be a good thing for all projects.
> If you want to modify commiter access rules just do it. None will ever
> complain if you are more efficient and productive.
It has nothing to do about us wanting more freedom or our own pet rules.
Facts have shown that we have already fragmented stuff (too much?) and
created non-written rules.
> My guts tells me there is too much burocracy and politics in this...
> damn it it's open source! It's self determination by definition! There
> is no need for institutionalisation.
Then why "Apache" at all? <dizzy>
> Ok I sound like ranting now... it's just that I'm sorry to see weeks of
> (code wise) unproductive discussion.
Two weeks? How long have you been away? ;-)
> hope I'm making sense...
The feelings are correct, but there is some background you're probably
not aware of. This PMC formation is completely different from what it
would have meant only one month ago.
I would have agreed with you at that time, the reasons currently are
different and based on the reorg discussions.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>
>>
>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>> strong and united but...
>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>
>
> It's about direct accountability to the board.
>
> This is what we *have* to agree on in any case, the PMC is just a tool.
>
> " ...
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
> development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
> and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
> Avalon subproject;
> ..."
So, if I'm getting this right, you want more control, more indipendence
over the rules governing the avalon (at large) community right?
I quite agree on that thou I would prefer to see a proposal to improve
the community sent to the Jakarta PMC to be voted and adopted by the
whole jakarta (or apache) community.
The ability to set up new cvs modules like [jakarta-avalon-*] could (I'm
not saying it is) be a good thing for all projects.
If you want to modify commiter access rules just do it. None will ever
complain if you are more efficient and productive.
My guts tells me there is too much burocracy and politics in this...
damn it it's open source! It's self determination by definition! There
is no need for institutionalisation.
Ok I sound like ranting now... it's just that I'm sorry to see weeks of
(code wise) unproductive discussion.
hope I'm making sense...
fede
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>
> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
> and united but...
> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
It's about direct accountability to the board.
This is what we *have* to agree on in any case, the PMC is just a tool.
" ...
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
Avalon subproject;
..."
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
>I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>
I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
and united but...
IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
It's Yet Another Mailing List.
fede
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Berin
>It was a nice gesture for Avalon Apps, but IMO something
>like Incubator or SourceForge would have been a better
>location. Eventually they could have been made top level
>projects (and some can, like FTP server or proxy server).
>
>
Proxy is a load a shit really. It needs a few week's work. It is more
of a demo for Phoenix comps.
FtpServer I agree should be a top level project. Rana needs to garner a
community first however excellent it is (the same thing that is a
blocker for AltRMI and others).
- Paul
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:40, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> 2) we keep only *one* set of utility classes called avalon-util
>> (no more fancy names, pleeease)
>
>
> The initial name for this was AUT (Avalon Utility Toolkit). However we dropped
> that idea as we needed to get a stable release out for cocoon. We could
> revive that but I am not sure it is a great idea.
In this world, there is only one thing we are sure of... well sort of...
> Either way I would -1 any backwards incompatible changes to anything released
> as 100% stable (in particular framework/logkit) even though from a technical
> perspective it would be nice ;).
This is a normal rule for anything in Apache, I would -1 it too.
>>>Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
>>>contracts for hosting server applications.
>>
>>This is a very delicate point.
>>
>>Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
>>should be a project in its own right.
>>
>>I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
>>we should unite?
>
> -1
>
> for the same reasons I have already explained to you when you asked me last
> time ;)
I need solutions, not vetos, which BTW do not count in this scenario:
please do not veto, counterpropose.
Please explain your proposal here, we need to decide what to do and not
keep this thing in a limbo...
...if you wish, of course, I don't want to rush anybody unneedlessly.
But the question will eventually surface again. Soon.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:40, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 2) we keep only *one* set of utility classes called avalon-util
> (no more fancy names, pleeease)
The initial name for this was AUT (Avalon Utility Toolkit). However we dropped
that idea as we needed to get a stable release out for cocoon. We could
revive that but I am not sure it is a great idea.
Either way I would -1 any backwards incompatible changes to anything released
as 100% stable (in particular framework/logkit) even though from a technical
perspective it would be nice ;).
> > Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
> > contracts for hosting server applications.
>
> This is a very delicate point.
>
> Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
> should be a project in its own right.
>
> I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
> we should unite?
-1
for the same reasons I have already explained to you when you asked me last
time ;)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
--------------------------------------------------
Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence...
--------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
> >+1
>
> Paul:
>
> Could you clarify for me your +1.
> Are you saying you support the seperation of Phoenix into a project PMC,
> or are you saying that Phoneix should be part of the united Avalon?
Seperate project dude. It is not for us to decide in the end (+1 -1 style), Jakarta-PMC nd
general @jakarta...
- ph
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
>>>Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
>>>contracts for hosting server applications.
>>>
>>>
>
>Ahem... One of our containers, establishing its own rules and contracts for hosting server (and
>non server) applications. Rules, that is, beyond the ubiquitious Avalon-Framework interfaces.
>
>
>
>>This is a very delicate point.
>>
>>Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
>>should be a project in its own right.
>>
>>I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
>>we should unite?
>>
>>
>
>+1
>
>
Paul:
Could you clarify for me your +1.
Are you saying you support the seperation of Phoenix into a project PMC,
or are you saying that Phoneix should be part of the united Avalon?
Cheers, Steve.
>-ph
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Everything you'll ever need on one web page
>from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
>http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
> > Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
> > contracts for hosting server applications.
Ahem... One of our containers, establishing its own rules and contracts for hosting server (and
non server) applications. Rules, that is, beyond the ubiquitious Avalon-Framework interfaces.
> This is a very delicate point.
>
> Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
> should be a project in its own right.
>
> I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
> we should unite?
+1
-ph
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
:-)
> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
+1
I recall posts on the reorg and the community mailing lists about
starting a new Avalon from the basics, aka framework, and build up.
My comments below follow this line of reasoning.
> As to the explicit wording, I am not shure. However, I
> am looking at it in this way:
>
> Avalon Framework: establishes the contracts, rules, and
> expectations of Avalon components. (note that those
> intangible qualities can be expressed in code)
This is where we should start from.
> Avalon LogKit: the logging toolkit it always has been.
>
> Avalon Excalibur: enabling technologies for Avalon
> components.
> Avalon Cornerstone: collection of Avalon components
> (since we should have one definition)
>
These three contain stuff that can be divided into three categories:
Components/services, utility stuff and containers.
Part of our problems has come from dividing implementations and creating
feuds, so I would propose that:
1) the Components/services would eventually migrate to Apache Commons.
not now, not tomorrow, but the path is set, and other projects
like Turbine will follow :-)
2) we keep only *one* set of utility classes called avalon-util
(no more fancy names, pleeease)
3) all containers in the making, like Merlin2 and Fortress
go in the scratchpad dir.
This should *not* be done hastly, it will take time. But we'll get there.
In the end we will have *one* avalon CVS repo, with
./src/framework/**.java
./src/util/**.java
./scratchpad/src/merlin2/**.java
./scratchpad/src/fortress/**.java
Some classes now in framework will go in util too probably, we'll have
to vote case by case.
We will start with an empty CVS repo and I will ask votes on all
packages and eventually classes, and put in only what we agree on.
> Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
> contracts for hosting server applications.
This is a very delicate point.
Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
should be a project in its own right.
I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
we should unite?
> Anything else is not really fit for the Avalon
> PMC/direct Avalon umbrella.
Ad we should be *very* clear about what to accept.
All tentative stuff goes in /scratchpad, and no individual releases.
> It was a nice gesture for Avalon Apps, but IMO something
> like Incubator or SourceForge would have been a better
> location. Eventually they could have been made top level
> projects (and some can, like FTP server or proxy server).
I'd defer the decision of Avalon Apps for now, but would suggest Apache
Commons for common apps that can be used as components or the incubator
for bigger stuff.
It's up to the interested committers though to lead the show on this.
Oh, BTW, I would take up the PMC chair job, and fulfill the role in the
most neutral way possible, as a sort of Avalon re-incubation process.
I would resign as soon as the "porting" will be done.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
PMC et al
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
As to the explicit wording, I am not shure. However, I
am looking at it in this way:
Avalon Framework: establishes the contracts, rules, and
expectations of Avalon components. (note that those
intangible qualities can be expressed in code)
Avalon LogKit: the logging toolkit it always has been.
Avalon Excalibur: enabling technologies for Avalon
components.
Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
contracts for hosting server applications.
Avalon Cornerstone: collection of Avalon components
(since we should have one definition)
Anything else is not really fit for the Avalon
PMC/direct Avalon umbrella.
It was a nice gesture for Avalon Apps, but IMO something
like Incubator or SourceForge would have been a better
location. Eventually they could have been made top level
projects (and some can, like FTP server or proxy server).
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
>DO we vote for ourselves? If so count me as a candidate
>for Avalon Chair.
>
>
Noted.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:20 PM
>>To: Avalon Developers List
>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
>>
>>
>>
>>Following on from the other emails in this Avaon PMC
>>thread, we need to select a chair for the PMC. The Chair
>>must be from the list of opt-in PMC members.
>>
>>I've prepared the following list showing the name of people
>>on the proposed chair list. If members feel ready to take
>>on the role of chair, could you please post a reply to this
>>list. I figure the number of "candidates" will probably be
>>small and that this should not be dramtic process. I would
>>also like to restate that in the longer term I would like to
>>some sort of model where the chair is a job that is passed
>>around - but that a subject for the PMC once established.
>>
>>Could the following people please post to the list their
>>position with respect to taking on the job:
>>
>>* Nicola Ken Barozzi
>>* Stephen McConnell <-- ready if necessary
>>* Leo Sutic
>>* Leo Simons
>>* Paul Hammant
>>* Marcus Crafter
>>* Carsten Ziegeler
>>
>>If you have an interest in the role of chair and have not
>>already opted-in to the PMC, don't worry, its not too late.
>>All you need to do is to post a message to the list requesting
>>participation to the PMC, together with a note concerning your
>>ambissions with respect to the implicit role of "VP Avalon".
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Cheers, Steve.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Stephen J. McConnell
>>
>>OSM SARL
>>digital products for a global economy
>>mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
>>http://www.osm.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>><mailto:avalon-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>>For
>>additional commands,
>>e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
DO we vote for ourselves? If so count me as a candidate
for Avalon Chair.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:20 PM
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
>
>
>
> Following on from the other emails in this Avaon PMC
> thread, we need to select a chair for the PMC. The Chair
> must be from the list of opt-in PMC members.
>
> I've prepared the following list showing the name of people
> on the proposed chair list. If members feel ready to take
> on the role of chair, could you please post a reply to this
> list. I figure the number of "candidates" will probably be
> small and that this should not be dramtic process. I would
> also like to restate that in the longer term I would like to
> some sort of model where the chair is a job that is passed
> around - but that a subject for the PMC once established.
>
> Could the following people please post to the list their
> position with respect to taking on the job:
>
> * Nicola Ken Barozzi
> * Stephen McConnell <-- ready if necessary
> * Leo Sutic
> * Leo Simons
> * Paul Hammant
> * Marcus Crafter
> * Carsten Ziegeler
>
> If you have an interest in the role of chair and have not
> already opted-in to the PMC, don't worry, its not too late.
> All you need to do is to post a message to the list requesting
> participation to the PMC, together with a note concerning your
> ambissions with respect to the implicit role of "VP Avalon".
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
> --
>
> Stephen J. McConnell
>
> OSM SARL
> digital products for a global economy
> mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
> http://www.osm.net
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:avalon-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For
> additional commands,
> e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>
> * Nicola Ken Barozzi
for chair.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Chair
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Following on from the other emails in this Avaon PMC
thread, we need to select a chair for the PMC. The Chair
must be from the list of opt-in PMC members.
I've prepared the following list showing the name of people
on the proposed chair list. If members feel ready to take
on the role of chair, could you please post a reply to this
list. I figure the number of "candidates" will probably be
small and that this should not be dramtic process. I would
also like to restate that in the longer term I would like to
some sort of model where the chair is a job that is passed
around - but that a subject for the PMC once established.
Could the following people please post to the list their
position with respect to taking on the job:
* Nicola Ken Barozzi
* Stephen McConnell <-- ready if necessary
* Leo Sutic
* Leo Simons
* Paul Hammant
* Marcus Crafter
* Carsten Ziegeler
If you have an interest in the role of chair and have not
already opted-in to the PMC, don't worry, its not too late.
All you need to do is to post a message to the list requesting
participation to the PMC, together with a note concerning your
ambissions with respect to the implicit role of "VP Avalon".
:-)
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Leo Simons [mailto:leosimons@apache.org]
>
> I would like us to move forward based on consensus rather
> than majority if at all possible. If the difference between
> consensus and majority is a month, I would like to wait that
> extra month.
Same here.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 12:26 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> I would like us to move forward based on consensus rather than majority
> if at all possible. If the difference between consensus and majority is
> a month, I would like to wait that extra month.
That's all that it is for me.
I'd also like to be on the PMC. I guess my prior message that said 'the
PMC should be all current committers except those that opt-out' wasn't
clear enough :)
-pete
--
peter royal -> proyal@apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 14:29, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Based on list messages to-date I have the impression that a
> majority want to move forward with this in conjunction with
> the November 18 PMC Meeting (remember - I said majority,
> not consensus). As such, I have not made any changes to the
> proposed vote schedule as originally posted.
I would like us to move forward based on consensus rather than majority
if at all possible. If the difference between consensus and majority is
a month, I would like to wait that extra month.
> Given that we need feedback from the board by Wednesday, I
> would like to forward the current draft to Greg later today
> just to verify that there are no glaring issues in the
> wording or any omissions in the overall resolution.
I think that is a good idea regardless of the time schedule.
regards,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Included below is a update based on feedback on the list
over the last 24 hours to the subject of the draft Avalon
PMC resolution. The text of resolution remains unchanged
with the exception of the addition of the names of
committers that have chosen to opt-in. Please check the
to make sure I haven't missed your name.
Based on list messages to-date I have the impression that a
majority want to move forward with this in conjunction with
the November 18 PMC Meeting (remember - I said majority,
not consensus). As such, I have not made any changes to the
proposed vote schedule as originally posted.
Given that we need feedback from the board by Wednesday, I
would like to forward the current draft to Greg later today
just to verify that there are no glaring issues in the
wording or any omissions in the overall resolution.
Here is the schedule and draft resolution without the
running commentary.
Wednesday 13 November
---------------------
* Finalize the resolution
* Incorporate feedback from the Apache Board
* Close the list of named PMC members
* Naming of the Chair
Thursday 14 November
--------------------
* Initiation of a [VOTE]
* Majority vote limited to Avalon comitters
* 72 hour vote (3 day) duration
Saturday 16 November
--------------------
* Vote count and notification of results.
Sunday 17 November
------------------
* Formal submisssion of the resolution to the board.
Monday 18 November
------------------
* Apache Board Meeting
====================================================================
DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR AN AVALON PMC
====================================================================
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
and maintenance of open-source software related to component and
service management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Avalon PMC", be and
hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
for the creation and maintenance of software related to component
and service management, based on software licensed to the
Foundation; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Avalon" be and
hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the
direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the
Avalon PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
Avalon PMC; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
* Nicola Ken Barozzi
* Stephen McConnell
* Leo Sutic
* Leo Simons
* Paul Hammant
* Marcus Crafter
* Carsten Ziegeler
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that <name-of-chair/> be
and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
successor is appointed; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
Avalon subproject; and be it further
RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Jakarta
Avalon sub-project and encumbered upon the Jakarta PMC are
hereafter discharged.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Afternoon everyone!
Based on traffic over the list from yesterday, here is the updated draft
Avalon PMC proposal included at the end of this email. The proposed PMC
members that have declared themselves as willing to serve as chair are
marked as chair-candidates.
A draft version of the resolution was submitted yesterday to Greg for
verification. I received confirmation early this morning that the
resolution in its current form is satisfactory. Greg requested that I
include a note to the board concerning the project charter on submission
of the proposal given the "mushy" nature of the scope statement. Given
that no alternative scope proposals have been made and based on Greg's
feedback, I am confident we will be able to undertake the further
refinement and qualification of this under a formal project charter as
we proceed. Thereby addressing the points raised by Pete on this subject
earlier today, and addressing Greg's comments on the same topic.
There is an open point raised by Pete's suggestion that we modify the
resolution text to the restriction the software base managed by the PMC
to that owned by Apache as opposed to the software licensed to Apache.
This particular section is boilerplate text as such I'm hesitant to
propose and re-validate a change without first establishing consensus on
the necessity for this. I would appreciate your opinions on this point.
On the subject of timing, it appears that we have managed to capture the
attention and engagement of the active committers within the Avalon
community, as evidenced by the proposed member list. Issues raised
appear to focussed more towards the subject of approaches to
rationalization and thoughts pertaining to a more complete charter.
Responsibilities to address both of these concerns are explicitly
addressed within the proposed resolution. Fortunately, the details of
these topics are outside of the immediate scope of the proposal but are
nether-the-less important subjects that I expect will engage everyone in
a lively debate as we move forward.
Based on Leo's email concerning our obligations (or more correctly
non-obligation) on chair selection, I have eliminated the action from
the schedule. With this item out of the way, with verification complete,
broad engagement of the community as evidenced by the list of proposed
members, I do not see any justification for delaying the process.
As such, actions that would need to be concluded between now and
tomorrow midnight GMT are listed below:
* Any additional finalize of the resolution
* Incorporate any additional feedback from the Board
* Close the list of named PMC members
Based on the proposed schedule, the vote on submission of the Avalon PMC
proposal to the Apache Board would be initiated at midnight (GMT)
Wednesday 13 November, closing midnight Saturday 16 November. It is a
majority vote restricted to committers. A vote count based on yes (+1),
no (-1), or abstain (+-0) for submission of the proposal will be based
on responses to this list and a count notification should be issued to
the list on Sunday. If the vote is successful, the proposal would be
submitted to the Apache Board as early as possible Sunday.
The complete proposal is detailed below:
====================================================================
DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR AN AVALON PMC
====================================================================
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
and maintenance of open-source software related to component and
service management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Avalon PMC", be and
hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
for the creation and maintenance of software related to component
and service management, based on software licensed to the
Foundation; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Avalon" be and
hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the
direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the
Avalon PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
Avalon PMC; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
* Nicola Ken Barozzi (chair-candidate)
* Stephen McConnell (chair-candidate)
* Leo Sutic
* Leo Simons (chair-candidate)
* Paul Hammant
* Marcus Crafter
* Carsten Ziegeler
* Pete Royal
* Berin Loritsch (chair-candidate)
* Peter Donald (chair-candidate)
* Jeff Turner
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that <candidate> be
and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
successor is appointed; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
Avalon subproject; and be it further
RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Jakarta
Avalon sub-project and encumbered upon the Jakarta PMC are
hereafter discharged.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:48, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
> of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
> establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
> and maintenance of open-source software related to component and
> service management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
I don't think this scope is something we want to accept. It is too broad a
definition. Do we cover webservices? Do we cover EJB containers? Do we cover
ORBs? Do we cover servlet engines? Everything there is related to "component
and service management" yet little would be appropriate for avalon.
It also stops us hosting enabling technologies. I would prefer a more specific
scope that restricted us to maintaining component technologies developed on
top of our lifecycle definition. I would also prefer that enabling
technologies also be considered in scope.
> RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
> for the creation and maintenance of software related to component
> and service management, based on software licensed to the
> Foundation; and be it further
I would prefer to remove the phrase licensed to - if it needs to be ammended
in the future then we can do that. Until such a time I would like to restrict
our work code owned by Apache.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| I thought there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. |
| There's a knob called "brightness", but it doesn't work. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Can we cut down on the cross posting? I believe that at this point the
Jakarta PMC and the incubator PMC are aware that Avalon is pursuing this
resolution, and those that care to can follow this on avalon-dev, either
directly or via mail archives like
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103691454800002&r=1&w=2
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/BrowseList?listName=avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org&by=thread&from=272622
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>Hi,
>
>When this was discussed last time there was points that were raised that need
>to be addressed before any such proposal goes forward. It would be unlikely
>that these issues could be resolved in the timeframe proposed. Especially
>given that some of the interested parties may not read their mail before the
>vote is closed. As it is a major change I don't think it is appropriate to
>try and rush through anything without everyones involvement.
>
Hi Pete:
It's good to get some feedback from you on this. I'll try and address the
points you have raised one by one.
Concerning prior discussions:
-----------------------------
The following message was triggered by discussions on the reorg list
concerning the responsibilities of projects. The message, posted by
Leo Simons was quoting another message from Sam Ruby in which thoughts
were raised relative to the need for an Avalon management structure.
* http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103539779400820&w=2
A little later you kicked off the thread concerning reorganization of
Avalon - focussing mainly on identification of candidates for Apache
Commons.
* http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103578734000006&r=1&w=2
Around the same time, discussions on the legal implication and general
thoughts about an Avalon PMC commenced. In these posts Leo Sutic
expressed his support for the principal of an Avalon PMC but suggested
that we get more guidelines from Apache. You raised a concern as to
scope, and later the suggestion for relocation of some activities into
commons. Paul also noted the csframework activities in the context
of scope definition. Leo Simons followed up on the scope question
suggesting structuring of current activities relative to our published
scope before going to the board, and also put forward some concerns and
support for separation.
* http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103598015700004&r=1&w=2
* http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103597891500005&r=1&w=2
From these messages is seems reasonable to say that there is consensus
for restructuring of Avalon, however, Leo Sutic's email was for all
intensive purposes unanswered. On the 9-NOV-2002, Greg Stein put
forward his recommendation and suggestions which would appear to address
questions Leo was raising. In addition, Greg was quite clear on a
timeline.
* http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103681137000001&r=1&w=2
In all of the above there has not been a vote on any release or
transfer - discussion, yes, decision, no. The important point here
is that there appears to be consensus within Avalon, the Jakarta PMC
and the Board that restructuring is required. As such, the requirement
for restructuring is reflected in the proposed resolution.
This leaves the question of time.
---------------------------------
Overall, the subject of an "Avalon PMC" has been out-in-the-open
since the 23-OCT-2002 (a little over two weeks) and longer for anyone
who tracked the reorg discussions. By the end of the process, the
subject will be been present on the avalon-dev list for nearly a
month. Aside from that, I've alocated a 72 hour voting period which
is what I understand to be the required duration for a vote of this
kind, together with advance notice.
Given that the proposed resolution basically reinforced the consensus
already established on restructuring, we are basically moving
forward with what we already want to do. As such I don't see this as
controversial or a major change from what we have been discussing.
I agree with you on the point that the timeframe is short - but I'm also
conscious of the fact that there is an immediate requirement for our
resolution of the future of Avalon (and as I mentioned in an earlier
post, I prefer to see us driving this as opposed to a Jakarta PMC or
Board driven solution).
One way to raise the safety-net would be to forward the proposal email
together with a short note to all of the committers directly. Do
you (or anyone else) know how I can get that list of email addresses?
>
>I expect to see at least half of our code migrate to Apache Commons. Of the
>remainder I expect to see a large proportion move to incubator (or some to
>Apache Commons sandbox if it exists and some to incubator).
>
I agree. Establishing an Avalon PMC now simply puts in place a better
structure and context from which those actions can be taken. Part of
that process would undoubtably involve the migration your describing.
One important difference would be that those actions would be taken in
the context of a charter and roadmap.
That sounds like a big plus to me.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:48, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>Hi everyone:
>>
>>Following on fro the Avalon PMC thead, I spent a good part of last night
>>reading through a bunch of the PMC chartering proposal in the board
>>minutes (http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar.html) and based
>>on that content, I've put together a draft resolution for discussion. I
>>think it is useful to circulate this draft as early as possible for two
>>reasons - firstly, there is the subject of scope that is central to the
>>Avalon community; and secondly, the Apache Board Meeting is on the 18
>>... i.e. eight days from now.
>>
>>Working forwards from today:
>>
>>Sunday 10 November (today)
>>
>>* Start discussion on a resolution
>>
>>Wednesday 13 November
>>
>>* Finalize a resolution
>>* Incorporate feedback from the Apache Board
>>* Close the list of named PMC members
>>* Naming of the Chair
>>
>>Thursday 14 November
>>
>>* Initiation of a [VOTE]
>>* Majority vote limited to Avalon comitters
>>* 72 hour vote (3 day) duration
>>
>>Saturday 16 November
>>
>>* Vote count and notification of results.
>>
>>Sunday 17 November
>>
>>* Formal submisssion to the resolution to the board.
>>
>>Monday 18 November
>>
>>* Apache Board Meeting
>>
>>As you can see, we have basically four days to discuss and turn over a
>>proposal. Within that time we need to sort out a nomination for proposed
>>chair, and get the list of potential PMC member established.
>>
>>To kick off this process I've prepared an initial draft of a resolution
>>for the formation of an Avalon PMC. In the following text the formal
>>resolutions are indented and proceeded by a non-legal summary outlining
>>the purpose of each resolution. Where relevant I've attempted to
>>indicate resolutions that are more administrative in nature as opposed
>>to resolutions that are more directly relevant to the Avalon community.
>>
>>====================================================================
>>DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR AN AVALON PMC
>>====================================================================
>>
>>
>>The draft resolution starts of with a boilerplate context statement.
>>
>>WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
>>of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
>>establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
>>and maintenance of open-source software related to component and
>>service management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
>>
>>The first resolution handles the establishment of an Avalon PMC as a
>>formally recognized entity within Apache.
>>
>>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
>>Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Avalon PMC", be and
>>hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
>>and be it further
>>
>>This resolution declares the scope of the Avalon PMC. This resolution is
>>directly relevant at an operational level because it restricts the scope
>>of our activities. The key phrase is "component and service management".
>>
>>RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
>>for the creation and maintenance of software related to component
>>and service management, based on software licensed to the
>>Foundation; and be it further
>>
>>This resolution creates a new board position of Avalon VP which ensures
>>that Avalon is represented at the top-level of Apache, and that the
>>board, through the VP, can assure accountability of the Avalon PMC and
>>project.
>>
>>RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Avalon" be and
>>hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the
>>direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the
>>Avalon PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
>>of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
>>Avalon PMC; and be it further
>>
>>The next resolution is the appointment of the Avalon PMC members. This
>>resolution is important for a number of reasons - it provides a higher
>>level of legal protection to members than available to a committer, and,
>>it declares the set of people who will ultimately address the tasks
>>handed down by the board (definition of structure, code migration,
>>rationalization, etc). The intent is to include the spectrum of active
>>committers on Avalon. Suffice to say, if your a committer and you want
>>to get engeged in the future of Avalon, please include your name below.
>>Based on posts on the Avalon PMC subject from yesterday, it is safe to
>>assume that the list already includes Nicola and myself. I would also
>>like to see representatives from both the Jakarta PMC and the Incubator
>>PMC, at least during the initial transition period.
>>
>>RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
>>are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
>>
>><list-of-people/>
>>
>>This resolution is the appointment of PMC Chair, and the appointment of
>>that individual to the post of Avalon VP.
>>
>>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that <name-of-chair/> be
>>and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
>>to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
>>Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
>>resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
>>successor is appointed; and be it further
>>
>>The next three resolutions are directives from the board. Two of these
>>resolutions concern the Avalon PMC and one resolution concerns the
>>Jakarta PMC. The first of these directives is largely boilerplate
>>content that covers the establishment of a functional structure. I would
>>expect to see the policy/bylaws side of this largely driven by the work
>>on-going within the Incubator project.
>>
>>RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
>>with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
>>development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
>>and be it further
>>
>>The secondary directive is based on an interpritation of the board
>>requirements based on Greg's recommendations and Nicola's comments from
>>yesterday concerning Jakarta Avalon content migration and rationalization.
>>
>>RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
>>with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
>>Avalon subproject; and be it further
>>
>>The final directive releases the Jakarta PMC of its responsibilities
>>related to the Jakarta Avalon sub-project.
>>
>>RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Jakarta
>>Avalon sub-project and encumbered upon the Jakarta PMC are
>>hereafter discharged.
>>
>>Ok, fire away :-)
>>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon PMC Draft Resolution
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
Hi,
When this was discussed last time there was points that were raised that need
to be addressed before any such proposal goes forward. It would be unlikely
that these issues could be resolved in the timeframe proposed. Especially
given that some of the interested parties may not read their mail before the
vote is closed. As it is a major change I don't think it is appropriate to
try and rush through anything without everyones involvement.
I expect to see at least half of our code migrate to Apache Commons. Of the
remainder I expect to see a large proportion move to incubator (or some to
Apache Commons sandbox if it exists and some to incubator). Hopefully this
will see a return to access based on merit and thus remove the source of
conflict by resticting access appropriately.
At that stage it may be more appropriate to migrate to a top level project.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:48, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Hi everyone:
>
> Following on fro the Avalon PMC thead, I spent a good part of last night
> reading through a bunch of the PMC chartering proposal in the board
> minutes (http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar.html) and based
> on that content, I've put together a draft resolution for discussion. I
> think it is useful to circulate this draft as early as possible for two
> reasons - firstly, there is the subject of scope that is central to the
> Avalon community; and secondly, the Apache Board Meeting is on the 18
> ... i.e. eight days from now.
>
> Working forwards from today:
>
> Sunday 10 November (today)
>
> * Start discussion on a resolution
>
> Wednesday 13 November
>
> * Finalize a resolution
> * Incorporate feedback from the Apache Board
> * Close the list of named PMC members
> * Naming of the Chair
>
> Thursday 14 November
>
> * Initiation of a [VOTE]
> * Majority vote limited to Avalon comitters
> * 72 hour vote (3 day) duration
>
> Saturday 16 November
>
> * Vote count and notification of results.
>
> Sunday 17 November
>
> * Formal submisssion to the resolution to the board.
>
> Monday 18 November
>
> * Apache Board Meeting
>
> As you can see, we have basically four days to discuss and turn over a
> proposal. Within that time we need to sort out a nomination for proposed
> chair, and get the list of potential PMC member established.
>
> To kick off this process I've prepared an initial draft of a resolution
> for the formation of an Avalon PMC. In the following text the formal
> resolutions are indented and proceeded by a non-legal summary outlining
> the purpose of each resolution. Where relevant I've attempted to
> indicate resolutions that are more administrative in nature as opposed
> to resolutions that are more directly relevant to the Avalon community.
>
> ====================================================================
> DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR AN AVALON PMC
> ====================================================================
>
>
> The draft resolution starts of with a boilerplate context statement.
>
> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
> of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
> establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
> and maintenance of open-source software related to component and
> service management, for distribution at no charge to the public.
>
> The first resolution handles the establishment of an Avalon PMC as a
> formally recognized entity within Apache.
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
> Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Avalon PMC", be and
> hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
> and be it further
>
> This resolution declares the scope of the Avalon PMC. This resolution is
> directly relevant at an operational level because it restricts the scope
> of our activities. The key phrase is "component and service management".
>
> RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
> for the creation and maintenance of software related to component
> and service management, based on software licensed to the
> Foundation; and be it further
>
> This resolution creates a new board position of Avalon VP which ensures
> that Avalon is represented at the top-level of Apache, and that the
> board, through the VP, can assure accountability of the Avalon PMC and
> project.
>
> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Avalon" be and
> hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the
> direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the
> Avalon PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
> of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
> Avalon PMC; and be it further
>
> The next resolution is the appointment of the Avalon PMC members. This
> resolution is important for a number of reasons - it provides a higher
> level of legal protection to members than available to a committer, and,
> it declares the set of people who will ultimately address the tasks
> handed down by the board (definition of structure, code migration,
> rationalization, etc). The intent is to include the spectrum of active
> committers on Avalon. Suffice to say, if your a committer and you want
> to get engeged in the future of Avalon, please include your name below.
> Based on posts on the Avalon PMC subject from yesterday, it is safe to
> assume that the list already includes Nicola and myself. I would also
> like to see representatives from both the Jakarta PMC and the Incubator
> PMC, at least during the initial transition period.
>
> RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby
> are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Avalon PMC:
>
> <list-of-people/>
>
> This resolution is the appointment of PMC Chair, and the appointment of
> that individual to the post of Avalon VP.
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that <name-of-chair/> be
> and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Avalon,
> to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
> Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
> resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
> successor is appointed; and be it further
>
> The next three resolutions are directives from the board. Two of these
> resolutions concern the Avalon PMC and one resolution concerns the
> Jakarta PMC. The first of these directives is largely boilerplate
> content that covers the establishment of a functional structure. I would
> expect to see the policy/bylaws side of this largely driven by the work
> on-going within the Incubator project.
>
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
> development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
> and be it further
>
> The secondary directive is based on an interpritation of the board
> requirements based on Greg's recommendations and Nicola's comments from
> yesterday concerning Jakarta Avalon content migration and rationalization.
>
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
> Avalon subproject; and be it further
>
> The final directive releases the Jakarta PMC of its responsibilities
> related to the Jakarta Avalon sub-project.
>
> RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Jakarta
> Avalon sub-project and encumbered upon the Jakarta PMC are
> hereafter discharged.
>
> Ok, fire away :-)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
---------------------------------------------------
"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we
cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our
responsibilities." -Josiah Stamp
---------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>