On Nov 17, 2003, at 5:51 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 16 Nov 2003, at 19:23, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Transcontinental flights are great to catch up on stuff.
On Nov 10, 2003, at 6:18 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
there's also the issue of whether the jakarta-commons community wants to become top level. there are certainly some who do but i suspect that most want things to stay as they are. i might be able to persuade a few components to move (and so gaining some momentum for a move that way) but persuading the whole of jakarta-commons to move is certainly beyond me.
This is the bit that bugs me. Why should we be persuading anyone to do anything? I'll support and help move people out if they want to move out, I'll support A-C by trying to start/bring non-Java things there if I can and help some other way if I have no code to offer. But I'm not going to start trying to get people to move, especially with weird marketing like "You'll still be part of Jakarta but you won't be!"
the flatteners have presented a vision whereby jakarta would (eventually) become just a web site with the currently sub-projects managed by themselves. it seems to me that a reasonable description (of this condition) is that the project will still be part of jakarta but managed by another pmc. "linked from jakarta and retaining jakarta website editing rights" would be a more accurate (but longer) description.
Interesting experiment.
the jakarta pmc has been criticized by ASF members a *lot* (and over a long period) about it's inability to persuade sub-projects to move to top level status. this isn't going to happen without some advocacy from within the jakarta community.
I guess I'll have to go back and review. I thought the criticism was aimed at oversight rather than some desire for structural change. I believe that having umbrella PMCs is a *good* thing, because when you break things out, you just move the problem elsewhere, namely the board.
Having an umbrella PMC that is a community of like minded people (Java people, XML people, whatever...), then I think that you have a better ability to manage because of the common understanding. Of course, there still is the issue of how well that PMC operates, but that's not what we're talking about here.
if the ASF membership isn't in favour of flattening then i'd hoped that at least one member would have said something.
I'm a member, and speaking for myself, I think that forced flattening is a bad idea. I think that voluntary flattening by projects that want to do that is a good idea. And to keep my bases covered, I think that good PMC oversight is critical here.
similarly, if the criticisms don't represent the consensus position of the ASF membership then i would have hoped to hear at least one dissenting member voice an opinion.
I'm that member.
maybe the ASF members will have a chance to discuss these kinds of things at apachecon and come up with some clearer policies...
I wonder how much they do care as a group. Interesting question.
geir
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
