Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> Great. Perfect description. Not disputing the general sentiment (I >>> still think it's moving deck chairs around if you move every committer >>> into the PMC). >> >> I think it's more about a consistent naming and organization with the >> rest of apache ( and the httpd project where all things started ). > > Ok - that's fine. But note that httpd and jakarta are different (for what I > know of httpd...). I don't think Jakarta is all bad, and think that > changes should be made to improve things.
+1 Having a consistent naming and structure as a starting point can't hurt. >> It is also a good opportunity to improve few things: >> >> - find who's tracking what component. > > That would be good, but don't we know that from the status files ? We know who's commiting - or did. And we have no mechanism to track sandbox - since most of them have 1-2 committers only. >> - better tracking of who's active ( if we use 'active committer' def. ) > > How? Once on the PMC, your are on, right? My 'active committer' would mean that once you stop beeing active you are supposed to remove yourself from the list. ( and add yourself back when you return ) >> - a way to better pass the message and get people involved in the >> monitoring activity > > I don't see how a new title and mail list will change anything. If we > have > to start changing the values of the community, we can do it directly. If > there are things we have to change, it's our responsibility as committers > to do it. different issues - the title is to make things more uniform with httpd/apr/etc and get closer to the legal protection. The other issue is increasing awareness and having more active involvement in the management of the project. I'm not sugesting automatic committer/SPMC conversion. If some committer wants to participate in the SPMC ( which is more of a title, you're right ) he'll have to volunteer at least for monitoring few components ( and sandbox components ). > Ok - why not just make the file then? I am sure that every active > committer will step up to do this. > > The thing that we do get out of this is a formal accountability to the ASF > - > but it strikes me as strange that we take all (or most) committers, define > them to be the PMC, and all of a sudden accountability happens. Do you > see what I mean? Well, I think we _are_ accountable already - at least for jakarta-commons proper, and many committers are acting as a PMC. Do you see what I mean ? Again - I'm not sugesting taking all committers and just define them as SPMC. I'm sugesting creating a SPMC that will be open to all active committers who want the title or are willing to help with this task ( monitoring ). Most of us are indeed tracking few components. > Seems like we have a problem if our committers aren't responsible and > willing to be held accountable. I think we all agree this is not the case. Except that outside j-c there is a perception that if you are not in a PMC or you don't have some PMC to read each code commit - you're not accountable ( or protected legally or whatever ). >> We can create some rules so that any committer can join the SPMC by >> volunteering for some components and participating in some sort >> of load distribution, and use this as a way to pass information. > > What information? Why not the usual list? We wouldn't want this to be > closed, would we? I meant pass the information on the load distribution. When you decide you want to be a SPMC member, you volunteer for some tasks - and this way we can synchronize and spread the load. >> Regarding 'separating from jakarta' - I do think that j-c is in a way >> the 'core' of jakarta ( I don't know any other jakarta sub-project >> to bring so many people together ). >> > > Bingo. +1. Exactly. That was the intent, and that is what we achieved. > To break it up or move it in the name of 'community' means someone is > missing the point (not you, Costin) The problem is that quite a few people already expressed the idea of moving pieces of the code ( and this will affect the community ). >> But I wouldn't mind opening it up to xml.apache.org people - we already >> have few great committers from xml working on j-c, and I think it would >> be great to expand this. > > Fine - our hurdles for becoming a committer aren't very high. Do we have > a > problem where XML people aren't being allowed to contribute? I mean, if > someone showed up with patches or new code, I think there is enough mixing > of the communities that the person would be granted committer status, just > like we automatically let in committers from other Jakarta projects, > right? I know. We know. It would be nice for them to know that too :-) And right now I don't think this is well-known in xml.apache.org. >> AFAIK HTTPD PMC includes every committer. > > I don't think so - I asked. It doesn't include every committer, and those > that are a part of it are elected by the existing PMC based on 'merit'. > > I haven't had time to ask for clarification. Probably we asked different persons. My understanding is that the diff is insignifiant. As you see, I don't mind a bigger diff - as long as some objective means are used. I think 'active and interested and willing to do the chores' is a good criteria. > Well - don't the active committers of each jakarta subproject *already* do > the code reviews and monitoring and decisions? What else are they here > for? I suppose that's not a question for me :-) I think most jakarta people know the answer as well. > I somewhat resent the idea that Jakarta PMC is a popularity contest. (And > not because I'm on it...) > Every person that I have voted for on the PMC is, in my opinion, someone who > understands Jakarta, has a clear view supportive of Apache goals, has > contributed to one or more subprojects in a significant way, and is active > in the community. What other definition of merit would one want? I would add: and has gained the trust of a significant number of committers. I'm pretty sure you got a lot of votes from people who use JSPs ( or at least some ). >> The problem is that we call things differently, and this de-facto >> 'delegation' that happened since the beginning of jakarta is now >> considered a problem. > > I understand that there are legal issues that must be addressed, but I > can't believe that such a lively community, with both diversity and > strength in the ASF licensed code bases, could have happened as a series > of one-offs attaching to the ASF as 'top level projects'. > > If there are problems, lets solve them. Lets not destroy Jakarta in doing > so. +1 >> And I think trust has nothing to do with what you work on or what >> technical opinions you have ( including 'hot' issues like JSP/Velocity). >> I think I had technical disagreements with almost everyone in jakarta. > > And I don't think that JSP vs Velocity is a hot issue anymore. The answer > is clear :-) Well - what's very clear is that we can work on common things even if we have different taste for the templating language ( and many other things ). Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
