AxKit to be "partitioned"

[Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>]

In case some of you on here aren't subscribed to 
general@xml.apache.org, I suggest you either subscribe now or go 
through the archives. They are talking about re-partitioning the XML 
PMC, and this might quite drastically effect how the AxKit project is 
managed. Your feedback and input on this is strongly desired.

Matt.

Re: AxKit to be "partitioned"

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote:

> I hope this wasn't misconstrued. All I mean is we're not suffering from
> any particular problems with being in the XML PMC. It works well for us.

ack.

> I guess what I'm trying to say is that by bringing this up you can fix
> this problem. You don't need a redesign of the community.

In part - it still is the case that we do rely on very few individuals to
do the actual monitoring; and it is easy to miss someting when that
volunteer is occupied otherwise. Do not forget that when we end up in a US
style lawsuit we ultimately are not judged by how 'good' we do, but by the
esoteric examples and extreme cases where we made a tiny slip.

> The biggest problem I perceive with becoming a member of the XML community
> at the ASF is the lack of documentation of what's expected of developers.

Agreed - this is a mistake we're trying to correct in the incubator; which
is both to document what we thing is expected and then ensure this message
is heard. Having said that - defining what is expected is a process; and
something which will take (a lot more) time.

> Hmm, this should probably be CC'd to general@ :-) I haven't, because only
> the above two paragraphs are relevant there.

Feel free to do so :-) you are hitting on an issue: We may have started
the incubator to make sure new projects are made more aware; perhaps we
need to retroactively fit/debug somme of the older projects too.
Especially as the work in the incubator, and ongoing legal exposure of the
open source world, is slowly both chaning and refining the notions and
what we expect from projects.

Dw

Re: AxKit to be "partitioned"

[Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:

> > > (TLPs), will it split into smaller groups, if smaller groups, along
> > > what lines, etc. Given the mostly Java-centricity of the XML PMC, i've
>
> > I kind of feel that AxKit is pretty autonomous. We started out as a
> > standalone project, and we really just use the ASF as a marketing tool.
>
> If it is just the latter - you may indeed need to (re)consider your
> position; as the ASF generally more than just a brand; it provides legal
> protection, it provides a home to a code base beyond the lives of a single
> committer, etc. If this is something to which this community does not
> subscribe then we may need to do some debugging.

I hope this wasn't misconstrued. All I mean is we're not suffering from
any particular problems with being in the XML PMC. It works well for us.
We haven't needed the legal protection, so it hasn't (yet) been relevant
to us, but should the need ever arise you can be sure we'll be grateful of
it. Plus should I ever get hit by a bus I'm safe in the knowledge that
AxKit will continue (though I suspect that will be the least of my
worries should that happen :-)

> > What I mostly feel about the whole discussion is I don't understand
> > what the problem is.
>
> Please consult the archive. This is important.
>
> 	http://www.mail-archive.com/general@xml.apache.org/maillist.html

I've read it (obviously I'm subscribed) and still don't feel fully versed.

> > something truly broken? I'm not really sure.
>
> Yes there is; we have seen a number of minor issues in the XML land, such
> as releases arguably not beeing peer reviewed or lack of recording of the
> votes leading up to a release. None of these are major, and each will be
> fixed as we come across them. But they should have been caught earlier,
> and hence we are looking at how we can improve oversight. And the reason
> we want oversight is so that the ASF can continue to provide a safe home
> to the code we work on, and shield its developers of legal issues.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that by bringing this up you can fix
this problem. You don't need a redesign of the community.

The biggest problem I perceive with becoming a member of the XML community
at the ASF is the lack of documentation of what's expected of developers.
This is still quite poorly documented and what documentation is pointed at
(mostly at Jakarta) is very long and intimidating to a new developer who
just wants to cut some code into a project. Perhaps that's a simpler thing
to focus on.

Hmm, this should probably be CC'd to general@ :-) I haven't, because only
the above two paragraphs are relevant there.

-- 
<!-- Matt -->
<:->get a SMart net</:->
I am Jack's stern warning.

Re: AxKit to be "partitioned"

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote:

> > I've been following the discussion, but it still seems to be at the
> > "so what are we gonna do?" stage

Correct.

> > and its not clear what our choices are.

There is no pre defined list of choices of which you need to pick the
right one - just a list of requirements to which a solution is to be
found. In short (consult the archive for a more complete overview)

->	Onee of the aims of the ASF is to provide adequate legal shielding
	of its developers.

->	For this reasin it is required that within the ASF:

	->	There is active oversight and peer review
		of the various projecs, and that this does
		not depend on single point of failures.

	->	Things such are releases leave a visible
		+1 voting track by multiple committers
		as to evidence peer review and oversight.

->	The XML tlp has possible become too large to be managable by
	the current relatively small group of PMC members (just
	0.5-1.5 person/project) to accomplish the above in its
	current form.

Ideas floating around are things such as increasing the size of the PMC,
or using more systematic reporting/managing steps, splitting it in 2-4
smaller chunks, etc.

> > Is everything in the XML PMC going to become top-level projects

No - that moves the issue simply to the board - who would not be able to
provide the effective oversight required.

> > (TLPs), will it split into smaller groups, if smaller groups, along
> > what lines, etc. Given the mostly Java-centricity of the XML PMC, i've

> I kind of feel that AxKit is pretty autonomous. We started out as a
> standalone project, and we really just use the ASF as a marketing tool.

If it is just the latter - you may indeed need to (re)consider your
position; as the ASF generally more than just a brand; it provides legal
protection, it provides a home to a code base beyond the lives of a single
committer, etc. If this is something to which this community does not
subscribe then we may need to do some debugging.

> What I mostly feel about the whole discussion is I don't understand
> what the problem is.

Please consult the archive. This is important.

	http://www.mail-archive.com/general@xml.apache.org/maillist.html

>  Is someone after change for the sake of it? Is

No, this is something we abhor in the ASF and avoid at all cost. Should
you feel however that this still is the case after reading the archive do
contacnt me or the board@.

> something truly broken? I'm not really sure.

Yes there is; we have seen a number of minor issues in the XML land, such
as releases arguably not beeing peer reviewed or lack of recording of the
votes leading up to a release. None of these are major, and each will be
fixed as we come across them. But they should have been caught earlier,
and hence we are looking at how we can improve oversight. And the reason
we want oversight is so that the ASF can continue to provide a safe home
to the code we work on, and shield its developers of legal issues.

Dw

Re: AxKit to be "partitioned"

[Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>]

On 22 Nov 2003, at 16:12, Kip Hampton wrote:

> Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> In case some of you on here aren't subscribed to 
>> general@xml.apache.org, I suggest you either subscribe now or go 
>> through the archives. They are talking about re-partitioning the XML 
>> PMC, and this might quite drastically effect how the AxKit project is 
>> managed. Your feedback and input on this is strongly desired.
>
> I've been following the discussion, but it still seems to be at the 
> "so what are we gonna do?" stage and its not clear what our choices 
> are. Is everything in the XML PMC going to become top-level projects 
> (TLPs), will it split into smaller groups, if smaller groups, along 
> what lines, etc. Given the mostly Java-centricity of the XML PMC, i've 
> wondered if we might not be better off as a TLP, or somehow more 
> aligned w/ the Perl PMC, but I dunno. What are your thoughts?

I kind of feel that AxKit is pretty autonomous. We started out as a 
standalone project, and we really just use the ASF as a marketing tool.

What I mostly feel about the whole discussion is I don't understand 
what the problem is. Is someone after change for the sake of it? Is 
something truly broken? I'm not really sure.

Re: AxKit to be "partitioned"

[Kip Hampton <kh...@totalcinema.com>]

Matt Sergeant wrote:
> In case some of you on here aren't subscribed to general@xml.apache.org, 
> I suggest you either subscribe now or go through the archives. They are 
> talking about re-partitioning the XML PMC, and this might quite 
> drastically effect how the AxKit project is managed. Your feedback and 
> input on this is strongly desired.

I've been following the discussion, but it still seems to be at the "so 
what are we gonna do?" stage and its not clear what our choices are. Is 
everything in the XML PMC going to become top-level projects (TLPs), 
will it split into smaller groups, if smaller groups, along what lines, 
etc. Given the mostly Java-centricity of the XML PMC, i've wondered if 
we might not be better off as a TLP, or somehow more aligned w/ the Perl 
PMC, but I dunno. What are your thoughts?

-kip