On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 03:32:01PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > > > We are a portability project, which is > > > > > all the library was when I wrote it, and all I wish the project to > > > > > be. If > > > > That's what *you* wanted Ryan. Tough luck, but there are more of us. And we > > have wanted it to be more, and it *is* more. > > That's right, I opened the project up to other people, which doesn't mean > that I no longer get a say.
Don't mischaracterize me. I never said you couldn't have a say :-( > I am saying that I believe we have violated > our charter, and I wish to correct that problem. > > We created a mission statement as a PMC a long time ago (it was removed > from the STATUS file some time ago, but here are the three options that > were originally in the STATUS file: >... > The Apache Portable Run-time mission is to provide a free library > of C data structures and routines, forming a system portability > layer to as many operating systems as possible, including Unices, > MS Win32, BeOS and OS/2. > Votes: +1: OtherBill, Karl, Fred, Greg > > > Notice the final one is word for word what is on the web site. As a TEAM > we agreed to that as our mission statement. You can't just change the > mission statement because you want to. If you want to change that > statement, then bring it to the PMC, and let us discuss it. Our mission is defined by our actions. That statement is a static phrase, created at a point in time two years ago. It has not kept up with where we want to go with the APR project. So hell ya, it needs to be updated. But I do *not* see it as a limitation on what we choose to do. It is a *description*, not a *restriction*. We chose it as a way to describe what we were doing two years ago (writing APR; APRUTIL wasn't envisioned). But that is it: a description. > As things stand right now, however, apr-serf and apr-html are in violation > of the mission statement, as decided by the PMC. Therefore, I am > suggesting that all discussion of these projects be tabled until we either > uphold our current mission, or create a new one. I would rephrase that as "update the mission statement." Our mission is defined by our actions. There is no need to table anything. >... > > Of course we can. Our charter allows us to define our scope. I see that as > > focusing on "portable" libraries. > > Which, from the votes above, I would consider to be a change from > your previous position. Which is fine, but you don't get to decide on the > mission statement for the whole project. Sure. That was a vote on how to describe the APR project at *that point in time*. It is unrelated to describing our mission today. But it is merely a description. And if two years ago, you had asked, "should we be about portable libraries, or just libraries that engender portability?" I probably would have said the former. But I dunno. It would be interesting to scour the email lists, as I seem to recall that came up. But hey... if I was only for engendering portability, then yes: I've changed my mind. So sue me :-) Seriously... it is for *visitors* to read. Not us. That phrase is used to help people figure out what the APR Project is all about. As a group, we define what to do. What code to write. What code to accept. Since that occurs as a group, then that also means we are implicitly altering our charter.mission/ Each decision moves us in a slightly different direction. If at each point, we had refused to create apr-util or apr-serf, then I'd agree that we're only about engendering portability. But that isn't the case. We decided to expand the scope into portable [using] libraries. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
