You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stdcxx.apache.org by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com> on 2007/08/27 22:59:15 UTC
[RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
I'm working on the Board resolution based on the following page:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution
and I have a few issues I need help with. I'm hoping that our
mentors can give us guidance here, although I certainly encourage
everyone else, most of all committers, to read through this and
provide feedback.
1. Official project name: Apache C++ Standard Library
I have always assumed that the official name of our project is
the Apache C++ Standard Library, and that STDCXX is an "acronym"
or "keyword" (e.g., the same way APR is to the Apache Portable
Runtime Project). I'm not 100% sure that everyone shares the
same view so I'm looking for a confirmation that "Apache C++
Standard Library" is an acceptable name to use in the resolution.
(The attached proposed resolution assumes the answer is
affirmative.)
2. Composition of the initial PMC.
At the moment, our index page lists 11, and soon hopefully 13
committers, plus 3 mentors (see
http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/#committers):
1. Andrew Black (PPMC member)
2. Heidi Buelow (PPMC member, Emeritus)
3. Lance Diduck
4. John Hollis (Emeritus)
5. Amit Jindal (PPMC member)
6. Liviu Nicoara (PPMC member)
7. Ravi Palepu (Emeritus)
8. Anton Pevtsov (PPMC member)
9. Martin Sebor (PPMC member)
10. Tim Triemstra (PPMC member)
11. Farid Zaripov (PPMC member)
12. Mark Brown (pending IPMC approval)
13. Eric Lemings (pending IPMC approval)
14. Ben Laurie (Mentor)
15. William Rowe, Jr. (Mentor)
16. Justin Erenkrantz (Mentor)
First, I'm sure everyone agrees with me that Bill and Justin have
been a great help and that it would be a privilege to have both
of you on the PMC. The question is, busy as I'm sure you are, do
either of you wish not to be on it? (The attached proposed
resolution assumes the answer is no, i.e., both Bill and Justin
are on the PMC -- please speak up if that's not the case.)
Second, I assume that in general, the entire podling's PPMC
becomes the (proposed) PMC by default. The question I have about
our PPMC is: do PMC members who are in the status of Emeritus
fall into the same category? (The attached proposed resolution
assumes the answer is yes.)
Finally, the attached proposed resolution assumes that the IPMC
approves both Brad and Mark as the new committers. I intend to
wait to submit the proposal until the IMPC vote on their commit
access has closed. If anyone thinks we should not wait please
speak up.
3. Vice President (PMC Chair?)
The Board resolution must nominate a Vice President for top level
projects. First, is this the same thing as the PMC Chair (see the
definition below)? Second, we need to nominate someone for this
office. Unless someone would like to volunteer for this post or
unless we need to go through a formal vote process, I would be
happy to volunteer for the office. (The attached proposed
resolution has my name in that role.)
http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-chair
Thanks
Martin
Re: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Eric Lemings wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:29 PM
>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
>>
>> Eric Lemings wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 2:59 PM
>>>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on the Board resolution based on the following page:
>>>>
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution
>>>>
>>>> and I have a few issues I need help with. I'm hoping that our
>>>> mentors can give us guidance here, although I certainly encourage
>>>> everyone else, most of all committers, to read through this and
>>>> provide feedback.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Official project name: Apache C++ Standard Library
>>>>
>>>> I have always assumed that the official name of our project is
>>>> the Apache C++ Standard Library, and that STDCXX is an "acronym"
>>>> or "keyword" (e.g., the same way APR is to the Apache Portable
>>>> Runtime Project). I'm not 100% sure that everyone shares the
>>>> same view so I'm looking for a confirmation that "Apache C++
>>>> Standard Library" is an acceptable name to use in the resolution.
>>>> (The attached proposed resolution assumes the answer is
>>>> affirmative.)
>>> I agree with the canonical name. As for the acronym, I'd like to
>>> propose "ASL".
>> Not ASCXXL? ;-)
>
> Too clever I guess, some may say obfuscated. :-P
>
>> I'm not sure if we can easily change this or even that we should
>> try. What would happen to Jira or mailing lists? I suppose lists
>> could have aliases, but it might be additional work for the infra
>> team.
>>
>> But if you're serious about it go ahead and make a formal proposal
>> to change it. Far be if for me to discourage you but I expect you
>> will need to have a really compelling rationale to convince
>> everyone, especially the rest of the Incubator, that it's a good
>> idea.
>
> Good idea? Not sure. Better acronym? I think so.
I agree it's easier to pronounce and probably will be easier to
remember. If it was easy to change I'd be all for it. The issue
is that a) I don't know how easy it would be to change, and b)
I may not have the bandwidth to try to find out. If you would
like to try I'll support you but you'll have to do the legwork.
I.e., find out (either from our mentors or from the rest of the
Incubator) how difficult such a change would be, how we would
go about implementing it, and by how long it would delay our
graduation.
>
> Hypothetical scenario: another acronym is proposed, be it "ASL" or
> whatever, and it is well received. Unanimously in fact.
>
> Would all this required work still be worth the change? If the answer
> is yes, then it's a good idea.
>
> I just have the feeling that people will associate "STDCXX" more with
> Rogue Wave Software rather than the Apache Foundation. So in that
> respect, ANY new acronym will be a better choice.
I'm not sure I see why that would be the case. We (Rogue Wave)
have made it clear that stdcxx is the Apache implementation of
the C++ Standard Library:
http://www.roguewave.com/standard-library/
Martin
RE: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
Posted by Eric Lemings <le...@roguewave.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:29 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
>
> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 2:59 PM
> >> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
> >>
> >> I'm working on the Board resolution based on the following page:
> >>
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution
> >>
> >> and I have a few issues I need help with. I'm hoping that our
> >> mentors can give us guidance here, although I certainly encourage
> >> everyone else, most of all committers, to read through this and
> >> provide feedback.
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Official project name: Apache C++ Standard Library
> >>
> >> I have always assumed that the official name of our project is
> >> the Apache C++ Standard Library, and that STDCXX is an "acronym"
> >> or "keyword" (e.g., the same way APR is to the Apache Portable
> >> Runtime Project). I'm not 100% sure that everyone shares the
> >> same view so I'm looking for a confirmation that "Apache C++
> >> Standard Library" is an acceptable name to use in the resolution.
> >> (The attached proposed resolution assumes the answer is
> >> affirmative.)
> >
> > I agree with the canonical name. As for the acronym, I'd like to
> > propose "ASL".
>
> Not ASCXXL? ;-)
Too clever I guess, some may say obfuscated. :-P
> I'm not sure if we can easily change this or even that we should
> try. What would happen to Jira or mailing lists? I suppose lists
> could have aliases, but it might be additional work for the infra
> team.
>
> But if you're serious about it go ahead and make a formal proposal
> to change it. Far be if for me to discourage you but I expect you
> will need to have a really compelling rationale to convince
> everyone, especially the rest of the Incubator, that it's a good
> idea.
Good idea? Not sure. Better acronym? I think so.
Hypothetical scenario: another acronym is proposed, be it "ASL" or
whatever, and it is well received. Unanimously in fact.
Would all this required work still be worth the change? If the answer
is yes, then it's a good idea.
I just have the feeling that people will associate "STDCXX" more with
Rogue Wave Software rather than the Apache Foundation. So in that
respect, ANY new acronym will be a better choice.
EBL.
Re: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Eric Lemings wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 2:59 PM
>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
>>
>> I'm working on the Board resolution based on the following page:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution
>>
>> and I have a few issues I need help with. I'm hoping that our
>> mentors can give us guidance here, although I certainly encourage
>> everyone else, most of all committers, to read through this and
>> provide feedback.
>>
>>
>> 1. Official project name: Apache C++ Standard Library
>>
>> I have always assumed that the official name of our project is
>> the Apache C++ Standard Library, and that STDCXX is an "acronym"
>> or "keyword" (e.g., the same way APR is to the Apache Portable
>> Runtime Project). I'm not 100% sure that everyone shares the
>> same view so I'm looking for a confirmation that "Apache C++
>> Standard Library" is an acceptable name to use in the resolution.
>> (The attached proposed resolution assumes the answer is
>> affirmative.)
>
> I agree with the canonical name. As for the acronym, I'd like to
> propose "ASL".
Not ASCXXL? ;-)
I'm not sure if we can easily change this or even that we should
try. What would happen to Jira or mailing lists? I suppose lists
could have aliases, but it might be additional work for the infra
team.
But if you're serious about it go ahead and make a formal proposal
to change it. Far be if for me to discourage you but I expect you
will need to have a really compelling rationale to convince
everyone, especially the rest of the Incubator, that it's a good
idea.
Martin
RE: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
Posted by Eric Lemings <le...@roguewave.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 2:59 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
>
> I'm working on the Board resolution based on the following page:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution
>
> and I have a few issues I need help with. I'm hoping that our
> mentors can give us guidance here, although I certainly encourage
> everyone else, most of all committers, to read through this and
> provide feedback.
>
>
> 1. Official project name: Apache C++ Standard Library
>
> I have always assumed that the official name of our project is
> the Apache C++ Standard Library, and that STDCXX is an "acronym"
> or "keyword" (e.g., the same way APR is to the Apache Portable
> Runtime Project). I'm not 100% sure that everyone shares the
> same view so I'm looking for a confirmation that "Apache C++
> Standard Library" is an acceptable name to use in the resolution.
> (The attached proposed resolution assumes the answer is
> affirmative.)
I agree with the canonical name. As for the acronym, I'd like to
propose "ASL".
EBL.
Re: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Mark Brown wrote:
> Martin,
>
> I am quite certain that "Apache ServiceMix" in the resolution should read "Apache C++ Standard Library."
Ah, yes, of course. A copy-and-paste typo.
Thanks for the careful proofreading!
Martin
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Martin Sebor be
> appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache ServiceMix,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> 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
>
> -- Mark
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sebor@roguewave.com
>> Sent: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:59:15 -0600
>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
>>
>> I'm working on the Board resolution based on the following page:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution
>>
>> and I have a few issues I need help with. I'm hoping that our
>> mentors can give us guidance here, although I certainly encourage
>> everyone else, most of all committers, to read through this and
>> provide feedback.
>>
>>
>> 1. Official project name: Apache C++ Standard Library
>>
>> I have always assumed that the official name of our project is
>> the Apache C++ Standard Library, and that STDCXX is an "acronym"
>> or "keyword" (e.g., the same way APR is to the Apache Portable
>> Runtime Project). I'm not 100% sure that everyone shares the
>> same view so I'm looking for a confirmation that "Apache C++
>> Standard Library" is an acceptable name to use in the resolution.
>> (The attached proposed resolution assumes the answer is
>> affirmative.)
>>
>>
>> 2. Composition of the initial PMC.
>>
>> At the moment, our index page lists 11, and soon hopefully 13
>> committers, plus 3 mentors (see
>> http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/#committers):
>>
>> 1. Andrew Black (PPMC member)
>> 2. Heidi Buelow (PPMC member, Emeritus)
>> 3. Lance Diduck
>> 4. John Hollis (Emeritus)
>> 5. Amit Jindal (PPMC member)
>> 6. Liviu Nicoara (PPMC member)
>> 7. Ravi Palepu (Emeritus)
>> 8. Anton Pevtsov (PPMC member)
>> 9. Martin Sebor (PPMC member)
>> 10. Tim Triemstra (PPMC member)
>> 11. Farid Zaripov (PPMC member)
>> 12. Mark Brown (pending IPMC approval)
>> 13. Eric Lemings (pending IPMC approval)
>> 14. Ben Laurie (Mentor)
>> 15. William Rowe, Jr. (Mentor)
>> 16. Justin Erenkrantz (Mentor)
>>
>> First, I'm sure everyone agrees with me that Bill and Justin have
>> been a great help and that it would be a privilege to have both
>> of you on the PMC. The question is, busy as I'm sure you are, do
>> either of you wish not to be on it? (The attached proposed
>> resolution assumes the answer is no, i.e., both Bill and Justin
>> are on the PMC -- please speak up if that's not the case.)
>>
>> Second, I assume that in general, the entire podling's PPMC
>> becomes the (proposed) PMC by default. The question I have about
>> our PPMC is: do PMC members who are in the status of Emeritus
>> fall into the same category? (The attached proposed resolution
>> assumes the answer is yes.)
>>
>> Finally, the attached proposed resolution assumes that the IPMC
>> approves both Brad and Mark as the new committers. I intend to
>> wait to submit the proposal until the IMPC vote on their commit
>> access has closed. If anyone thinks we should not wait please
>> speak up.
>>
>>
>> 3. Vice President (PMC Chair?)
>>
>> The Board resolution must nominate a Vice President for top level
>> projects. First, is this the same thing as the PMC Chair (see the
>> definition below)? Second, we need to nominate someone for this
>> office. Unless someone would like to volunteer for this post or
>> unless we need to go through a formal vote process, I would be
>> happy to volunteer for the office. (The attached proposed
>> resolution has my name in that role.)
>>
>> http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-chair
>>
>> Thanks
>> Martin
RE: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
Posted by Mark Brown <mb...@inbox.com>.
Martin,
I am quite certain that "Apache ServiceMix" in the resolution should read "Apache C++ Standard Library."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Martin Sebor be
appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache ServiceMix,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
-- Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sebor@roguewave.com
> Sent: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:59:15 -0600
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [RFC] draft stdcxx resolution for the Board
>
> I'm working on the Board resolution based on the following page:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution
>
> and I have a few issues I need help with. I'm hoping that our
> mentors can give us guidance here, although I certainly encourage
> everyone else, most of all committers, to read through this and
> provide feedback.
>
>
> 1. Official project name: Apache C++ Standard Library
>
> I have always assumed that the official name of our project is
> the Apache C++ Standard Library, and that STDCXX is an "acronym"
> or "keyword" (e.g., the same way APR is to the Apache Portable
> Runtime Project). I'm not 100% sure that everyone shares the
> same view so I'm looking for a confirmation that "Apache C++
> Standard Library" is an acceptable name to use in the resolution.
> (The attached proposed resolution assumes the answer is
> affirmative.)
>
>
> 2. Composition of the initial PMC.
>
> At the moment, our index page lists 11, and soon hopefully 13
> committers, plus 3 mentors (see
> http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/#committers):
>
> 1. Andrew Black (PPMC member)
> 2. Heidi Buelow (PPMC member, Emeritus)
> 3. Lance Diduck
> 4. John Hollis (Emeritus)
> 5. Amit Jindal (PPMC member)
> 6. Liviu Nicoara (PPMC member)
> 7. Ravi Palepu (Emeritus)
> 8. Anton Pevtsov (PPMC member)
> 9. Martin Sebor (PPMC member)
> 10. Tim Triemstra (PPMC member)
> 11. Farid Zaripov (PPMC member)
> 12. Mark Brown (pending IPMC approval)
> 13. Eric Lemings (pending IPMC approval)
> 14. Ben Laurie (Mentor)
> 15. William Rowe, Jr. (Mentor)
> 16. Justin Erenkrantz (Mentor)
>
> First, I'm sure everyone agrees with me that Bill and Justin have
> been a great help and that it would be a privilege to have both
> of you on the PMC. The question is, busy as I'm sure you are, do
> either of you wish not to be on it? (The attached proposed
> resolution assumes the answer is no, i.e., both Bill and Justin
> are on the PMC -- please speak up if that's not the case.)
>
> Second, I assume that in general, the entire podling's PPMC
> becomes the (proposed) PMC by default. The question I have about
> our PPMC is: do PMC members who are in the status of Emeritus
> fall into the same category? (The attached proposed resolution
> assumes the answer is yes.)
>
> Finally, the attached proposed resolution assumes that the IPMC
> approves both Brad and Mark as the new committers. I intend to
> wait to submit the proposal until the IMPC vote on their commit
> access has closed. If anyone thinks we should not wait please
> speak up.
>
>
> 3. Vice President (PMC Chair?)
>
> The Board resolution must nominate a Vice President for top level
> projects. First, is this the same thing as the PMC Chair (see the
> definition below)? Second, we need to nominate someone for this
> office. Unless someone would like to volunteer for this post or
> unless we need to go through a formal vote process, I would be
> happy to volunteer for the office. (The attached proposed
> resolution has my name in that role.)
>
> http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-chair
>
> Thanks
> Martin