Hi, On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looks like we missed a step; we need a graduation resolution for the > board to vote on. Here's my proposal, basically copied from Apache > Chemistry's, but I have a question. Since no distinction is made > between the PPMC members and committers in this resolution, and since > many of the original committers/IPMC members have become inactive, and > others have not yet been voted in as PPMC members, how should we deal > with that?
* Overall the resolution looks good, though note my comment on the scope below. * As discussed before, I don't think making a distinction between committers and (P)PMC members is useful for us. IMO such a setup only makes sense for "umbrella" projects like the Incubator and Lucene before it split out most of its subprojects. So my recommendation would be to make all (still active) committers also PMC members and stick with that policy going forward. * As for inactive people, you're already doing a good job asking them whether they still want to be involved. In case someone doesn't reply and hasn't shown up on the lists over the last year or so, it's fine to simply drop them from the resolution for lack of response. > Also, do we need to vote on who the vice president will > be? I believe we do... but maybe we can do this as part of the vote > on the resolution itself? You're already doing all the stuff a VP should be doing, and more, so I hereby nominate you to be the VP, Apache ManifoldCF. We can have a vote if other nominations are made, or consider you selected by lazy consensus otherwise. > 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 providing a framework for > transferring > content from source content repositories to target repositories or > indexes, > including a security model permitting target repositories to enforce > source > repository security, for distribution at no charge to the public; This is a pretty lengthy scope definition. Can we simplify it a bit? For example something like: "... open-source software for transferring content between repositories or search indexes". The details of how this is achieved (framework, security model, etc.) are IMHO best left outside the scope to allow more freedom down the line for the project to evolve. > RESOLVED, that the Apache ManifoldCF Project be and hereby is > responsible for the creation and maintenance of software providing a > framework for transferring content from source content repositories to > target repositories or indexes, including a security model permitting > target > repositories to enforce source repository security, for distribution > at no charge to the public. This should also be updated as discussed above. PS. If you don't mind, I'd be happy to stay on board the new ManifoldCF PMC at least for some time to help out with the transition to TLP. BR, Jukka Zitting
