Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We see a couple of things differently. For one, you don't seem to believe
that a community can be built by multiple collaborating PMCs.
I don't believe that the Apache vs Jakarta Commons analogy applies. AFAICS,
Apache Commons was an idea created before it had a community. A project
needs a community. I feel that Apache Commons could be another hub, for
Commons projects.
> just glomming everyone [onto the PMC] wouldn't result in
> the best outcome as we want to make sure that people are
> explicitly signing up for project oversight, rather than
> being drafted to meet a quota.
I agree, but getting the active committers onto the PMC isn't a matter of
meeting a quota. The PMC is supposed to be made up of the people actively
managing the project. That is its raison d'etre.
> > Personally, I don't feel that a 400+ person PMC overseeing dozens of
> > codebases represents a truely functional solution, but we can give it
> > a go.
> I can't see why not. The point of oversight is to catch the cases
> where things aren't right (i.e. code comes into the CVS that
> shouldn't w/o incubation) rather than continuously report when
> things are going well.
A PMC is not just about oversight. The PMC is supposed to provide the
active managment of the project. Code review, voting in new Committers,
voting in new PMC members, voting on releases, etc. I do not believe that
Stephen Colebourne is unique in his outlook, nor incorrect in his approach.
> I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
> additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC.
What I say presupposes that having a PMC consisting of 400+ people, with a
lot of different disjoint factions keeping up on any of dozens of projects
is a PMC in name only, and that asking everyone to watch everything under
such a PMC would be impractical.
> I would argue that it's no different - if you are providing
> oversight independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the
> same amount of work.
Not if people, like Stephen, decide that being responsible for active
project management means having to at least follow every project. If you
tell me that doing that won't scale, I will agree.
That said, I'm willing to start with the mega-PMC. I just don't expect it
to last. I expect projects to start asking for promotion to TLP status.
> The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community
> versus Jakarta as a website.
What in particular makes Jakarta a community, as you see it? This is not an
idle question. If you look at the question from the perspective of my
expectations, and you accept that I really do want to help preserve the idea
of a Jakarta community, then understanding how to structure a community that
survives the creation of multiple new PMCs takes on some importance.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
