On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:17:05PM -0800, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
> --- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your view is very akin to mine I think.
> >
> > My suggested proposal is designed to basically get
> > us to agree on the idea
> > then we would propose to A-Commons that they join a
> > TLP Jakarta Commons
> > [with the name Apache Commons] and bootstrap the
> > system with the Jakarta
> > Commons system. Same avail as we have, same website,
> > same rules etc.
>
> With some other details, like loosening the source
> control requirements, it's a possibility if a) the
> Apache-Commons PMC were to sign off on it,
I believe that if the question were posed again to the A-C PMC, then you'd
see *much* more agreement in the "commit access everywhere" model. As
noted earlier, I'm a proponent of that model and have some pretty good
arguments for it up my sleeve :-)
If this was a precondition to be able to merge the various Commons
communities from across the ASF, then I fully expect the A-C PMC to switch
to that model.
Now: when I said A-C PMC above, please don't see it as the *existing* set
of people. See next point:
> and b) the
> PMC either adopted an immediate and aggressive policy
> of granting PMC status to committers
Justin, the current A-C Chair, actually posted to the list: if you want to
be on the PMC, then speak up. He has specifically set the bar "low" while
A-C gets bootstrapped.
There doesn't appear to be a web archive of the mailing list, but here is
the specific quote:
Okay, let's do this: If you're on this list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and you
are already a committer to some other ASF commons project and would
like to help the ASF Commons by lending your insight and help us to
manage this endeavor, I'd like to solicit your self-nomination for
Commons PMC. Your stated interest in joining the PMC and prior
experience elsewhere within the ASF would be suitable justification
for me to nominate you to the rest of the PMC.
Note: this is a one-time offer. This isn't how things would normally
work, but we need to bootstrap ourselves by getting interested people
officially involved. -- justin
(I'm sure that "one-time" could be a "second-time" if we merge the various
Commons projects)
> or allowed the committers to vote on the big issues.
Only PMC Members can have binding votes. ASF rules, which are necessary
for proper oversight. The simple answer, of course, is to ensure that the
appropriate committers are on the PMC.
>...
> That's one of my main points. The Java-only
> references are important; it's sound advice that
> should be part of the project guidelines. "Remov[ing]
> Java only references" would be a mistake. That's my
> concern with a "language-agnostic" project: that
> important details would be glossed over (as they have
> been to-date) because they relate only to Java or C or
> whatever.
Seems you could have general guidelines, and language-specific guides. It
doesn't seem to be exclusive. Heck, I'd state that there would be
equivalent style (and other) guides for C, Perl, and Python.
> > As they have a lot of httpd background, I feel they
> > would help us a lot on
> > the formation of the initial PMC. They'll also be
> > useful for moving to
> > SVN, though I'd like to hear if the suggestions I've
> > seen that all of
> > Apache will use SVN are official or just bar-talk.
>
> I think it's premature to require SVN conversion until
> the tools catch up.
The ASF doesn't require anybody to use SVN, but in (say) a year or so, it
will. SVN provides a much higher level of code security (in terms of
protecting our repository from intrusion) than we have today with CVS.
At this point, the ASF is making SVN available, but isn't recommending any
transitions for projects. Sometime early next year, the ASF will make an
official request for projects to start thinking about the move. At some
point down the line, it will be required, as I mentioned.
The gentle rollout is to specifically deal with the case you mention:
ensure that the tools, procedures, utilities, etc have caught up.
> Until then, let the developers
> decide. And if it's not reasonable to maintain both
> an SVN and a CVS repository, then I say we use CVS for
> now, which most developers probably use both here and
> at their place of work.
Using both SVN and CVS within A-C would be entirely possible. Projects
would be encourage to move, but wouldn't have to. Note, however, that the
web site is in SVN, so the Commons committers would need to work with SVN
at some point.
>...
> That's your right under the voting rules. Under these
> circumstances, I wouldn't cast a vote on a component
> that I haven't committed code to, but I would support
> your option to vote against a component move. I think
> there are valid arguments either way, so your vote
> would definitely be valid.
I'm obviously not a member of this community, so I can't really speak for
what is Right(tm) for it or not, but I'd personally agree with Morgan.
> It's not reflected in their status document, but this
> is another significant point of divergence between A-C
> and J-C styles. When the topic was broached, IIRC the
> clear inclination amongst the A-C PMC was to restrict
> voting priveledges according to karma.
Yes, but I think we'd be getting rid of per-component karma barriers.
You're all-in, or not.
>...
Thanks for reading this far!
Cheers,
-g
p.s. most of this is my personal thinking. a few issues, such as voting
and SVN, come from my Director hat. for those who don't know, watch my
From: address. if I ever use @apache.org, then I'm definitely posting
officially. I skipped it here because the bulk is personal, and I didn't
want to add undue "weight" to those opinions.
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
