----- Original message ----------------------------------------> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
<SNIP/>
>I never understand why you keep doing this. There is no 'schism' >between the PMC and the community, and no one is proposing it.
>I hate to "appeal to authority" because the ASF charter does provide a >healthy bit of freedom for any given PMC, but for example, if we want >to follow the model of the httpd project, from which the ASF bylaws >were fashioned, and I know you are a vocal proponent of the 'ASF Way', >it is my understanding they invite committers onto the PMC after some >time after receiving committership when it's clear that is appropriate >for that person. Committing != oversight.
>There are people who are committers that may not wish to participate on >the PMC. We want everyone to, but if they aren't *interested* in doing >it, putting them on the PMC achieves nothing, and actually, IMO, >weakens the PMC. There are all sorts of valid reasons to not want to >be on the PMC, I suppose, and we should never stop inviting that >person.
>100% should be the goal, not the requirement.
----
The "schism" is that the PMC did not elect our committers. In the normal course, the body that elects the committers also decides which committers (or other interested parties) merit inclusion in the PMC.
However, Jakarta has not done things in the normal course. The PMC did not select most of the committers: the subproject communities did. And when our community selected the committers they expected that these individuals would be the ones actively managing the codebase. The community expected these individuals to have the rights and responsibilities we now abscribe only to the PMC.
I believe from the ASF perspective
committing==voting
and
committing==oversight
Every time a committer commits, they vote for the code they commit. Most often, it a vote subject to lazy consensus, and in rare cases it might not be binding. But, it is vote nonetheless.
Every time a committer commits, they either donate code to the ASF or facilitate a donation, and they incur the obligation to ensure, to the best of their ability, that this is IP that can be donated to the ASF.
If we have a committer that does not accept these obligations, then a misunderstanding has occurred, and such committers should step down. The ASF does not grant write-access lightly. I think people understand that.
In the normal course, virtually all ASF committers are PMC members, because its the committers make the decisions and do the work.
It is true that on occasion an ASF committer will not yet be member of the project PMC. Their votes may not be binding, and their commits will be scrutinized by PMC members (which is to say other members of the development team). But, in due course, the PMC that made them a committer also makes them a member.
When our community elected all of our committers, it was with the understanding that they were the ones with binding votes, that they were the decision makers, that the Jakarta Committers were, in practice, the Jakarta PMC.
In my humble opinion, it is the duty of the PMC to now ratify the decisions our community has already made. Since we now know that the PMC is *not* a steering committee and is in fact the active managers of the codebase, we are obligated to finish the job our community started: give the committers the legal rights and responsibility that we always believed they already had.
Make the committers the PMC, because they are the only true PMC that we have ever had.
Each and every one of our committers have earned their stripe. They have all proven to the community that they are thoughtful, responsible self-starters capable of managing our codebase on the community's behalf. These are the individuals that have been creating, maintaining and releasing the products we all cherish. These are the individuals that have been doing the true work of the PMC.
Where things have gone wrong, they have gone wrong because we were still using a "bootstrap" PMC that excluded all but a few of our decision makers. I'm sure that there are Jakarta committers that would be unwilling to serve on a "bootstrap" PMC, but serving on a true, inclusive PMC may be a different matter.
Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each decision-maker decide for himself or herself.
If the consensus is that the "bootstrap" PMC will continue to hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be.
But 'nuff said, I have a release to co-manage :)
-Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
