On 6/20/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On 6/16/06, Felipe Leme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip/> >> >> I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's >> proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update >> the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet >> connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it... >> > <snap/> > > Thanks for putting it all together as a summary, I've put the closing > statements from that email, verbatim, on a wiki page [1]. Its open to > edits (I might make some minor edits myself in a day or two). This is good. Here are a few additional things that we might want to think about adding, assuming all are OK with these commitments.
<snip/>
This (below) is generally in line with my expectations of how things should work, and aligned to what we've said previously in these threads, IMO. Ideally, there'd be a mechanism to get some feedback, even in your absence (thanks for volunteering though). -Rahul
This list is designed to address some of the concerns that have been raised in the past about umbrella projects. Obviously, not all may agree with the points below, and even with these provisions, the board may not approve the Testing proposal. I just thought it would be a good idea to get these ideas out for discussion for this and the other "umbrella-like" things that we may be splitting Jakarta into. 1. The PMC members named in the proposal are signing up to provide oversight for the *entire project*, not just "subprojects" that they participate in. In fact, there are formally no subprojects, just products or code bases that are versioned / released separately. I would recommend that we avoid the use of the term "project" other than for the TLP itself and avoid "subproject" altogether. 2. As new components are incorporated, the PMC will grow and will always include the (the majority of) active committers working on each of the components. Ability to make decisions on behalf of the whole project will be considered when granting commit access. 3. A necessary condition for adoption of a codebase or creation of a new component will be commitment from a minimum of 3 PMC members (possibly existing ASF committers, joining with the codebase) agreeing to review / apply patches, review commits, serve as RM, etc. for the new component. 4. If one or more of the components, or the entire project, grows in complexity or community size <this number intentionally left blank> to the point where effective oversight / active involvement by the Testing PMC on all components is no longer possible, the project will be split (just as Jakarta is being split now, per this proposal). Note that this is a statement of intent, not an administrative mandate (i.e., the somewhat painful, consensus-driven process that we are following now in Jakarta is our *intention* to improve and maintain). 5. Inactive components, or components without a sufficient number of active PMC members, will be regularly archived. One more personal thing: I just learned that the board meeting has been postponed until next Tuesday. Unfortunately, I will not able to attend that day. Therefore, it would be great if one of the other members supporting this proposal could step up to attend. Phil
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
