You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@xml.apache.org by Alberto Massari <am...@progress.com> on 2004/04/29 19:17:21 UTC
Re: [VOTE]: motion to transform Xerces into a top-level
project as a member of the "federation" of XML projects
At 20.05 29/04/2004 +1000, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>Any thoughts - not just from Xerces, but others as well? We have one
>month to the board meeting where we need to say what we are doing in this
>space.
>
>We either need to make this happen (and thus recognise that
>Xerces/Xalan/etc are already acting as TLPs), or we need to look at how
>the XML PMC is going to more effectively oversite the "sub-projects".
>
>I *really* don't want to head down the latter path, as it means the XML
>PMC is going to have to start getting involved in code changes and
>releases for all the sub-projects.
Hi Berin,
can you elaborate on the consequences of this change? At least for me it's
not completely clear what it means. This is what I understood:
- If the "yes" wins, a new PMC needs to be created, overseeing the releases
of Xerces-J, Xerces-C and Xerces-P. Who would be on this board? I guess it
will be made of people involved in these 3 projects; but this would mean
that, when one of these projects releases a version, a part of that board
will have no control on what has been released (granted, this percentage
will be lower - let's say 66% - than the current percentage in the XML PMC
- probably closer to 90%); or does it mean that the entire Xerces PMC will
need to be involved in all three projects?
- If the "no" wins, the current XML PMC should be "getting involved in code
changes": what does this imply? Monitoring xerces-cvs to spot license
problems or something else?
Thanks in advance,
Alberto
>Cheers,
> Berin
>
>Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>
>>Peoples,
>>I have hacked around a board resolution for making Xerces a TLP.
>>It's actually the only thing needed to get things going. But to finish
>>it, a PMC and chair would need to be added in.
>>Tell me if I'm wasting my time :>. I'd very much like to get one or two
>>of these moving by the next board meeting (one month from now). But if
>>it's not to be, then we also need to start working out how we are going
>>to improve XML PMC oversite of Xerces and the other sub-projects.
>>All thoughts welcome! I'd very much like to understand what everyone's
>>feelings are in relation to making Xerces (and the other sub-projects) TLPs.
>>Cheers,
>> Berin
>>
>> 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 XML parsers, for distribution
>> at no charge to the public.
>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
>> Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Xerces PMC", be and
>> hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
>> and be it further
>> RESOLVED, that the Xerces PMC be and hereby is responsible
>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to creation
>> and maintenance of open-source software related to XML parsers
>> based on software licensed to the Foundation; and be it further
>> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Xerces" 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
>> Xerces PMC, and to have primary responsibility for management
>> of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the
>> Xerces 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 Xerces PMC:
>> * name <ad...@apache.org>
>> * name2 <ad...@apache.org>
>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that REPLACE WITH CHAIR
>> be and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Xerces,
>> 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 Xerces PMC be and hereby is tasked
>> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
>> development and increased participation in the Xerces Project;
>> and be it further
>> RESOLVED, that the initial Xerces PMC be and hereby is tasked
>> with the migration and rationalization of the Apache XML PMC
>> Xerces subproject; and be it further
>> RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the XML
>> Xerces sub-project and encumbered upon the Apache XML PMC
>> are hereafter discharged.
>>
>>Andy Clark wrote:
>>
>>>Neil Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I guess the problem I have with it is that, to me, a sub-
>>>>>project should be related to a parent project which has
>>>>>some physical code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's the "physical code" in the XML project to which all the Xerces-*,
>>>>Xalan-* et al are related to?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There isn't any. Which is exactly why the individual
>>>parsers are not sub-projects in the XML project and they
>>>should not be sub-projects in the new Xerces project.
>>>
>>>>Pretty much the same kind of thing that is their parent now. Except under
>>>>this proposal there's the commonality of "intimately related to XML
>>>>parsing" binding the subprojects together; in XML, it's some vague
>>>>association with XML or its applications.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Can we just say that and keep the organization of the
>>>parser implementations the same? Then real sub-projects
>>>of the parsers have a place to live within the project/
>>>sub-project architecture.
>>>
>>>>I wonder if you had a chance to glance at my proposal on how to modify the
>>>>charter to permit "closely related" technologies. I'd actually prefer to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The proposal would need to be fundamentally changed
>>>before I could make suggestions about this point. And
>>>if the proposal is changed then it's probably not an
>>>issue anymore.
>>>
>>>>keep us doing parsers, and have components like HTML parsers live in
>>>>XML-commons (or some other more common place), but I thought this might
>>>>address your need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmm... I guess it *could* be a "common" type thing but
>>>it seems more of a Xerces-* sub-project. For example,
>>>the Xerces-J parser could have an HTML sub-project that
>>>includes the HTML DOM and an HTML parser built on the
>>>XNI foundation.
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: motion to transform Xerces into a top-level project
as a member of the "federation" of XML projects
Posted by Gareth Reakes <ga...@parthenoncomputing.com>.
Hey Berin,
thankyou for that summary. I add my +1 to making Xerces a
top-level project.
Gareth
--
Gareth Reakes, Managing Director Parthenon Computing
+44-1865-811184 http://www.parthcomp.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: motion to transform Xerces into a top-level project
as a member of the "federation" of XML projects
Posted by Gareth Reakes <ga...@parthenoncomputing.com>.
Hey Berin,
thankyou for that summary. I add my +1 to making Xerces a
top-level project.
Gareth
--
Gareth Reakes, Managing Director Parthenon Computing
+44-1865-811184 http://www.parthcomp.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: motion to transform Xerces into a top-level project
as a member of the "federation" of XML projects
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
Alberto Massari wrote:
> Hi Berin,
> can you elaborate on the consequences of this change? At least for me
> it's not completely clear what it means. This is what I understood:
> - If the "yes" wins, a new PMC needs to be created, overseeing the
> releases of Xerces-J, Xerces-C and Xerces-P. Who would be on this board?
> I guess it will be made of people involved in these 3 projects; but this
> would mean that, when one of these projects releases a version, a part
> of that board will have no control on what has been released (granted,
> this percentage will be lower - let's say 66% - than the current
> percentage in the XML PMC - probably closer to 90%); or does it mean
> that the entire Xerces PMC will need to be involved in all three projects?
Yes - a new PMC would be required. The membership would be at the
discretion of the committers of the new TLP. This is often done by just
adding all committers who expresses an interest at the time of project
creation.
Theoretically, the PMC should be making all major code decisions, along
with release decisions. Personally I think that makes sense in the case
of Xerces - I know there are a few people who are common accross C and
J, and in any case there is enough knowledge of the general problem that
people should be able to realistically comment on issues in the "other"
Xerces flavours.
> - If the "no" wins, the current XML PMC should be "getting involved in
> code changes": what does this imply? Monitoring xerces-cvs to spot
> license problems or something else?
The way the ASF is setup, it is the PMCs that have the "authority" to
make decisions on behalf of the foundation (in fact the project chair
has that authority, but it's "shared" with the PMC in the normal course
of events).
Decisions include things such as allowing a particular commit to CVS or
making a release. So it's far more than just checking license. In
theory (and in other projects) members of a PMC are intimately involved
in all code changes, because they are all direct committers.
To use a theoretical example - it's the PMC who should decide whether
Xerces should support XML-Schema - Xerces committers should not do so in
isolation.
Now, we don't do that in XML - it's just plain impractical, and at the
end of the day you guys know far more about parsing and related issues
than I will ever hope to. So what we have in effect done is allow each
of the sub-projects to act as a TLP, making it's own decision when to
change direction, or make code releases etc.
The board has indicated they are not comfortable with this. Projects
are supposed to be guided by a group of people explicitly authorised to
do so by the board - a PMC. So we *have* to fix it.
The Federation was seen as the best way to get a middle ground. Set
(for example) Xerces up as a TLP, but allow it to keep using the XML
resources unless it decides to "go it alone" with its own web site etc.
In effect, we are legitimising what is already being done. If you are
acting as a TLP, and it's working, why change it? Just give you the
authority to do so, in line with the ASF bylaws, and everyone is happy.
You would have to report direct to the board, but then you have to
write a report once a quarter anyway, so it's not that big a deal.
If we don't do this, then the XML PMC is going to have to work out how
to ensure decisions are being made by the people authorised by the board
- the PMC. I don't think it's workable, which is why I am pushing so
hard to get people to move to TLPs. But if people really don't want to,
then the PMC is going to have to become more active inside all the sub
projects.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: motion to transform Xerces into a top-level project
as a member of the "federation" of XML projects
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
Alberto Massari wrote:
> Hi Berin,
> can you elaborate on the consequences of this change? At least for me
> it's not completely clear what it means. This is what I understood:
> - If the "yes" wins, a new PMC needs to be created, overseeing the
> releases of Xerces-J, Xerces-C and Xerces-P. Who would be on this board?
> I guess it will be made of people involved in these 3 projects; but this
> would mean that, when one of these projects releases a version, a part
> of that board will have no control on what has been released (granted,
> this percentage will be lower - let's say 66% - than the current
> percentage in the XML PMC - probably closer to 90%); or does it mean
> that the entire Xerces PMC will need to be involved in all three projects?
Yes - a new PMC would be required. The membership would be at the
discretion of the committers of the new TLP. This is often done by just
adding all committers who expresses an interest at the time of project
creation.
Theoretically, the PMC should be making all major code decisions, along
with release decisions. Personally I think that makes sense in the case
of Xerces - I know there are a few people who are common accross C and
J, and in any case there is enough knowledge of the general problem that
people should be able to realistically comment on issues in the "other"
Xerces flavours.
> - If the "no" wins, the current XML PMC should be "getting involved in
> code changes": what does this imply? Monitoring xerces-cvs to spot
> license problems or something else?
The way the ASF is setup, it is the PMCs that have the "authority" to
make decisions on behalf of the foundation (in fact the project chair
has that authority, but it's "shared" with the PMC in the normal course
of events).
Decisions include things such as allowing a particular commit to CVS or
making a release. So it's far more than just checking license. In
theory (and in other projects) members of a PMC are intimately involved
in all code changes, because they are all direct committers.
To use a theoretical example - it's the PMC who should decide whether
Xerces should support XML-Schema - Xerces committers should not do so in
isolation.
Now, we don't do that in XML - it's just plain impractical, and at the
end of the day you guys know far more about parsing and related issues
than I will ever hope to. So what we have in effect done is allow each
of the sub-projects to act as a TLP, making it's own decision when to
change direction, or make code releases etc.
The board has indicated they are not comfortable with this. Projects
are supposed to be guided by a group of people explicitly authorised to
do so by the board - a PMC. So we *have* to fix it.
The Federation was seen as the best way to get a middle ground. Set
(for example) Xerces up as a TLP, but allow it to keep using the XML
resources unless it decides to "go it alone" with its own web site etc.
In effect, we are legitimising what is already being done. If you are
acting as a TLP, and it's working, why change it? Just give you the
authority to do so, in line with the ASF bylaws, and everyone is happy.
You would have to report direct to the board, but then you have to
write a report once a quarter anyway, so it's not that big a deal.
If we don't do this, then the XML PMC is going to have to work out how
to ensure decisions are being made by the people authorised by the board
- the PMC. I don't think it's workable, which is why I am pushing so
hard to get people to move to TLPs. But if people really don't want to,
then the PMC is going to have to become more active inside all the sub
projects.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org