Seems reasonable; I'll revise the resolution accordingly and put it up for a vote over the next couple of hours.
Thanks! Karl On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
