I nominate myself for the PMC chair and propose the following resolution: ..that the Apache Beehive PMC be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of a Java enterprise application framework focused on ease-of-use via highly toolable metadata-driven programming models.
On 7/20/05, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To reiterate the schedule I mentioned in my previous email. Here's my > suggestion: > > Today (Wednesday): start nominations for anyone interested in being VP/PMC > chair > > Today: someone (probably someone willing to be the chair) should > propose a resolution -- really just the single phrase that defines the > project scope inserted into the standard template (see below) > > Friday morning (PDT): start vote on resolution > > Sunday evening (PDT): start vote for VP (giving the rest of this week > and weekend for anyone to consider nominations) > > Tuesday morning (PDT): close vote on resolution and send to Board for > review before meeting, leaving VP name blank for the moment. > > Wednesday evening (PDT): close vote and insert Beehive's proposed VP > name into the resolution before board votes on it the next day. > > Sound good? > > Cliff > > On 7/20/05, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/20/05, Eddie ONeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For those who may not have seen, it seems that Beehive has been > > > released from the Apache Incubator, so congratulations are in order > > > for members of the community (user and dev) for having reached this > > > milestone. > > > > it does seem that way. ;-) We should see an official vote result > > summary on the incubator general list shortly (I think Dims will be > > sending that since he started the vote.) > > > > > As per Noel, Cliff and Dims's mails, we're awaiting an Apache Board > > > meeting for the discussion about having Beehive become a > > > top-level-project (TLP). More there when we hear further news. And, > > > Cliff, please correct me if I've conveyed any of this information > > > incorrectly. > > > > I believe the next Board meeting is scheduled for next Thursday. The > > only correction to what you wrote is that Beehive needs to provide a > > resolution (which includes a proposed VP) BEFORE the Board meeting -- > > in fact, preferably a couple days (Tuesday) before the Board meeting. > > The idea is that we give the Board something to vote on and hopefully > > approve. > > > > What this means is that the following things need to happen really soon: > > a) discussion and a vote on the resolution for Beehive (including a > > 1/2-line project scope), > > b) a vote to determine the proposed VP for the future Beehive TLP > > > > To have both of these things done by Tuesday (including a three-day > > voting period), we should probably start a) today and b) by Friday. > > I'd recommend that anyone who wants to nominate one of the PPMC > > members (including nominating one's self) as the VP does so in the > > next 48 hours or so. If the Board meeting is Thursday, we could > > probably let the VP vote run up until Wednesday and just plug a name > > into the resolution text (which we want to have submitted to the Board > > by Tuesday to allow them to review it). > > > > Hope this quickly-written email makes sense. BTW, I sent info about > > this process in response to a PPMC thread. I will resend that info to > > this -dev list (the process is not a secret ;-). All discussion and > > probably the resolution vote should happen on this list, but we may > > choose to cast VP votes on the private ppmc list. > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > I think that it makes sense to start stabilizing for a Beehive 1.0 > > > release in order to deliver Controls + NetUI to the community in a 1.0 > > > form. The situation for WSM relative to JSR 181 TCK compliance has > > > not changed, though I'd guess we'll start the TCK work in the next few > > > weeks. Once this has been passed, WSM will be added to Beehive in a > > > subsequent release. > > > > > > I'd suggest waiting a week or so to hear the outcome of the Apache > > > Board's decision relative to TLP status. Depending on the outcome of > > > this discussion, we could do a 1.0 release soon thereafter as a > > > full-fledged Apache project (!) or wait / discuss our options if that > > > decision is delayed for some reason. Either way, it makes sense to > > > deliver stable APIs soon. > > > > makes sense to me > > > > > > > > Status mail tracking our bug progress will appear shortly -- > > > currently, I think we've only got a couple of issues to be resolved in > > > the "V1" category. > > > > > > Thoughts / comments welcome. > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > >
