Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
> > This brings up another question: what constitutes a voting member? > > Does one company get 1 vote, or does each employee at a company get a > > vote? > > Each member of the core team should have a vote, regardless of company. I meant in the community, who gets a vote?
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
Exactly. Even though they work for AOL, they are still a part of the AOLserver community and should have a vote. I wish I could have put it this clearly. /s. -Original Message- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:AOLSERVER@;LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Jeff Hobbs Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long) > Since AOL has already picked its representation, it seems to me they > should not vote on the community half of the core team. Not that > their votes would necessarily be wrong or bad or have any nefarious > intention, but more in the interest of fairness, as has been said I disagree on this point, for a couple of reasons. While they have picked their own representation (which I feel is a good thing, because often the community has no idea who the behind-the-scenes people are and discounts them unfairly for that), they are also part of the community and users of AOLServer. As such, they need to vote on the community seats as well. All in all, their votes would only be a small part of the whole (one would assume). > This brings up another question: what constitutes a voting member? > Does one company get 1 vote, or does each employee at a company get a > vote? Each member of the core team should have a vote, regardless of company. When the TCT (Tcl Core Team) was formed, it had several employees of Scriptics/Ajuba, each as equal members with the others. There is no Scriptics anymore (acquire), but each of those people is still TCT member at a new company, and still participates. While it's unlikely that AOL is going to be acquired (hey Jim, any insider trading info?), it's one of several good reasons to establish an all-equal core team members. > For myself, if rather short term limits are put on the members anyway, Time limits are fine, but what time? 1 year, 2? Any shorter and it just becomes a hassle, and 2 years is 100 in internet time. I think the easiest is the self-managing aspect that the TCT added (although, to be honest, the TCT is overweight ...). Jeff
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
> Since AOL has already picked its representation, it seems to me they > should not vote on the community half of the core team. Not that > their votes would necessarily be wrong or bad or have any nefarious > intention, but more in the interest of fairness, as has been said I disagree on this point, for a couple of reasons. While they have picked their own representation (which I feel is a good thing, because often the community has no idea who the behind-the-scenes people are and discounts them unfairly for that), they are also part of the community and users of AOLServer. As such, they need to vote on the community seats as well. All in all, their votes would only be a small part of the whole (one would assume). > This brings up another question: what constitutes a voting member? > Does one company get 1 vote, or does each employee at a company get a > vote? Each member of the core team should have a vote, regardless of company. When the TCT (Tcl Core Team) was formed, it had several employees of Scriptics/Ajuba, each as equal members with the others. There is no Scriptics anymore (acquire), but each of those people is still TCT member at a new company, and still participates. While it's unlikely that AOL is going to be acquired (hey Jim, any insider trading info?), it's one of several good reasons to establish an all-equal core team members. > For myself, if rather short term limits are put on the members anyway, Time limits are fine, but what time? 1 year, 2? Any shorter and it just becomes a hassle, and 2 years is 100 in internet time. I think the easiest is the self-managing aspect that the TCT added (although, to be honest, the TCT is overweight ...). Jeff
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
> > It might also be nice to use cumulative voting. Since there are three > > positions, everyone should get three votes. You can vote for three > > nominees, or if you feel strongly, place all you votes for one nominee. > > As I recall, when the Tcl Core team was formed, and there were to be x # > of members (don't recall how many--I know it's grown since), everyone got > x # of votes (though you couldn't vote for the same person more than > once). That is correct, each person was allowed (IIRC) 3 votes among the 15+ candidates. However, you weren't allowed to vote multiple times for one person. Jeff
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Tom Jackson wrote: > It might also be nice to use cumulative voting. Since there are three > positions, everyone should get three votes. You can vote for three > nominees, or if you feel strongly, place all you votes for one nominee. As I recall, when the Tcl Core team was formed, and there were to be x # of members (don't recall how many--I know it's grown since), everyone got x # of votes (though you couldn't vote for the same person more than once). Michael
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
Jim Wilcoxson wrote: For myself, if rather short term limits are put on the members anyway, I'd be satisfied with listing certain criteria to be a team member, and letting any individual meeting those criteria participate on the core team. If there are too many nominees, pick out of a hat. The assumption going in is that they are all qualified. I don't think there will be tons of people fighting over this job because of the time required. I doubt any of the current nominees would participate in development less than they currently do if they are not voted onto the core team. I also think that the choice isn't that critical, because just the fact that three members of the core (that is half the members, right) will be from outside AOL, and will give the community more insight and access to the whole process. It also isn't that critical, because everyone nominated is well qualified. If the tcl core mode of operation is used, it looks like a disruptive member could be replaced with a 2/3 vote of the remaining members; so if a bad choice is made, someone can be replaced fairly easily. However if someone is doing a great job, as agreed by the other core members, why should they be replaced? Nothing precludes other community members from being very involved in the development process. At least the other AOL core members should be given a vote on who will serve with them. It might also be nice to use cumulative voting. Since there are three positions, everyone should get three votes. You can vote for three nominees, or if you feel strongly, place all you votes for one nominee. --Tom Jackson
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
Since AOL has already picked its representation, it seems to me they should not vote on the community half of the core team. Not that their votes would necessarily be wrong or bad or have any nefarious intention, but more in the interest of fairness, as has been said before. Just my opinion. This brings up another question: what constitutes a voting member? Does one company get 1 vote, or does each employee at a company get a vote? For myself, if rather short term limits are put on the members anyway, I'd be satisfied with listing certain criteria to be a team member, and letting any individual meeting those criteria participate on the core team. If there are too many nominees, pick out of a hat. The assumption going in is that they are all qualified. I don't think there will be tons of people fighting over this job because of the time required. Jim > On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Scott S. Goodwin wrote: > > > Should the AOL dev team members have a vote? Absolutely. They are > > involved with AOLserver as individuals, they run the largest sites that > > use AOLserver.
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
I think I understand what you intended. Thanks for clearing it up for me. /s. -Original Message- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:AOLSERVER@;LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Peter M. Jansson Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long) My point was that my criteria -- and they are just mine, I don't think anyone should feel obliged to use them -- were less a set of checkboxes than a set of weighted scores, and that the scores for the individual can balance with the scores for team as a whole. If one person is weaker at coding, but stronger at community relations, it may come out as a wash, as long as there's someone else with more coding strength involved. And I really appreciate your sharing some of your criteria. It helps me think about mine more. I hope others will share, too -- that's really why I sent that note. On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 04:47 PM, Scott S. Goodwin wrote: > I read it, but sadly I had to lookup Voltron on the net. I lived > overseas at the time,
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
Title: Message I stand corrected! It's nice to be wanted by someone other than the police for a change. What I meant by that statement was that you have a team that is focused on AOLserver, while the community is rather fragmented and unfocused on AOLserver as a whole -- we aren't organized. We in the community need you at AOL to help bring the community together so we can coordinate our efforts. The risk I was talking about regarded allowing decisions about AOLserver architecture to be voted on by individuals not working at AOL who are not focused on your business needs, though I'm sure you will benefit from the improvements that come from the community. /s. -Original Message-From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nathan FolkmanSent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:46 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)In a message dated 11/8/2002 4:27:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They don't need us, but we do need them, and thefact that they are now willing to take this risk speaks volumes giventhe tone of the past relationship between the AOLserver community andAOL.Actually, we very much do need the community! :-) Here's a great example: something like 98% of the AOLserver bug reports come you out there in the community. The continued success of AOLserver is very much dependent on continued community involvement.Remember, your help completing the documentation will prevent Jim from deleting all of the 4.0 code. ;-) Have a great weekend, and don't forget to get me those core team nominations!- n
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
Good points, but I think they're all moot in this particular election. All of the nominees I'm aware of are great candidates to be on the community-side of the core team, and all of them would do a superb job of representing the community's interests. So the question *not* will the elected community members represent the community's interests, but who from the community will it be? I have no heartburn with AOL members voting, but if the rest of you don't want that, I'm ok with that too. /s. -Original Message- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:AOLSERVER@;LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Peter M. Jansson Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long) On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Scott S. Goodwin wrote: > Should the AOL dev team members have a vote? Absolutely. They are > involved with AOLserver as individuals, they run the largest sites > that use AOLserver. I've been lucky enough to get some contracting gigs with AOL over the years, and have known many of the folks, who are among the nicest and smartest I've met. My question about voting was not intended to reflect any feelings toward AOL whatsoever. I was concerned it might have been taken that way, but when I tried to write a little about it, I thought it was too confusing, so I just let the question stand. Here's the thing: what is the purpose of the open-source community segment of the core team? The AOL part is clear -- they make sure that AOLserver continues to serve AOL's needs. There could be a lot of reasons for the core team, so I just stuck a stake in the ground around the one: the community members of the core team _represent_ the open source community. Maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm right, then there's a question of fairness, and since AOL employees already have representation, and since the open source community has _no_ choice over the composition of the AOL team, is it really fair for AOL employees to try to influence the representation of the other folks? What if they nominate a bunch of other AOL employees, and vote them in, leaving the open source community with no real representation. Well, for that matter, there are a bunch of other parliamentary questions, like how do we guarantee that everybody who votes gets a single vote, and how to we guarantee that the ballot box doesn't get stuffed with votes from folks who have no interest in AOLserver, and... I think the community is small enough that we can all trust each other on this first vote (in the future, some procedures should be put in place, but that's a job for core team 1.0), so I didn't really think it was worth bringing up the parliamentary issues. Except for the fairness one, because that's a bit different, in my view. That's not a question of cheating, so much as a question of fairness, and getting to the "will of the people" (to which, as an American, I have a little sensitivity). I just had the passing thought that votes for open source community members, given by AOL employees, were diluting the representation somehow. Assuming the job of the community members of the core team is representation -- and I'm not sure I'm right about that. It was just a simple question, although I think the answer is far from straightforward, but I don't think either of the answers is really wrong. I do think the answers help clarify the role of the core team. But I didn't really mean to bend anyone out of shape over this. It was just a question, and I didn't know if it had occurred to anyone else.
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
In a message dated 11/8/2002 4:52:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But I didn't really mean to bend anyone out of shape over this. It was just a question, and I didn't know if it had occurred to anyone else. Pete, I think you raise very valid points. I don't think there would be any adverse effects of having the vote limited to community members only. As I said before, I'm completely open to whatever everyone thinks is best. This whole process is something new for me, so I don't have all the answers, and am definitely looking for feedback from the community. Have a great weekend! PS - Jim isn't really going to delete code, but he will give me a hard time if we don't get it done soon. ;-) So please help me finish up the documentation! - n
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
My point was that my criteria -- and they are just mine, I don't think anyone should feel obliged to use them -- were less a set of checkboxes than a set of weighted scores, and that the scores for the individual can balance with the scores for team as a whole. If one person is weaker at coding, but stronger at community relations, it may come out as a wash, as long as there's someone else with more coding strength involved. And I really appreciate your sharing some of your criteria. It helps me think about mine more. I hope others will share, too -- that's really why I sent that note. On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 04:47 PM, Scott S. Goodwin wrote: I read it, but sadly I had to lookup Voltron on the net. I lived overseas at the time,
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Scott S. Goodwin wrote: Should the AOL dev team members have a vote? Absolutely. They are involved with AOLserver as individuals, they run the largest sites that use AOLserver. I've been lucky enough to get some contracting gigs with AOL over the years, and have known many of the folks, who are among the nicest and smartest I've met. My question about voting was not intended to reflect any feelings toward AOL whatsoever. I was concerned it might have been taken that way, but when I tried to write a little about it, I thought it was too confusing, so I just let the question stand. Here's the thing: what is the purpose of the open-source community segment of the core team? The AOL part is clear -- they make sure that AOLserver continues to serve AOL's needs. There could be a lot of reasons for the core team, so I just stuck a stake in the ground around the one: the community members of the core team _represent_ the open source community. Maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm right, then there's a question of fairness, and since AOL employees already have representation, and since the open source community has _no_ choice over the composition of the AOL team, is it really fair for AOL employees to try to influence the representation of the other folks? What if they nominate a bunch of other AOL employees, and vote them in, leaving the open source community with no real representation. Well, for that matter, there are a bunch of other parliamentary questions, like how do we guarantee that everybody who votes gets a single vote, and how to we guarantee that the ballot box doesn't get stuffed with votes from folks who have no interest in AOLserver, and... I think the community is small enough that we can all trust each other on this first vote (in the future, some procedures should be put in place, but that's a job for core team 1.0), so I didn't really think it was worth bringing up the parliamentary issues. Except for the fairness one, because that's a bit different, in my view. That's not a question of cheating, so much as a question of fairness, and getting to the "will of the people" (to which, as an American, I have a little sensitivity). I just had the passing thought that votes for open source community members, given by AOL employees, were diluting the representation somehow. Assuming the job of the community members of the core team is representation -- and I'm not sure I'm right about that. It was just a simple question, although I think the answer is far from straightforward, but I don't think either of the answers is really wrong. I do think the answers help clarify the role of the core team. But I didn't really mean to bend anyone out of shape over this. It was just a question, and I didn't know if it had occurred to anyone else.
Re: [AOLSERVER] [OT] Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
On Friday 08 November 2002 16:17, Gabriel Ricard wrote: > Am I missing something? I only recall the one with the lions and the > one with the cars. > What was the other one? google for 'Albegas' -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
In a message dated 11/8/2002 4:27:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They don't need us, but we do need them, and the fact that they are now willing to take this risk speaks volumes given the tone of the past relationship between the AOLserver community and AOL. Actually, we very much do need the community! :-) Here's a great example: something like 98% of the AOLserver bug reports come you out there in the community. The continued success of AOLserver is very much dependent on continued community involvement. Remember, your help completing the documentation will prevent Jim from deleting all of the 4.0 code. ;-) Have a great weekend, and don't forget to get me those core team nominations! - n
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
I read it, but sadly I had to lookup Voltron on the net. I lived overseas at the time, and when I came back to the states, went straight to college, sans television. So I'm not up on popular tv culture of that era. I hope a thorough knowledge of Voltron isn't a prerequisite for being on the core team ;) /s. -Original Message- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:AOLSERVER@;LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Peter M. Jansson Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long) You must have skipped over the "Voltron" paragraph. On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Scott S. Goodwin wrote: > I don't consider myself a > black-belt in the martial art of coding, which means I probably don't > qualify based on the criteria you've given, so I guess I lost your > vote.
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
You must have skipped over the "Voltron" paragraph. On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Scott S. Goodwin wrote: I don't consider myself a black-belt in the martial art of coding, which means I probably don't qualify based on the criteria you've given, so I guess I lost your vote.
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
Peter M. Jansson wrote: > Since the core team members will be chosen by vote, > I think it's useful to talk about how to decide for > whom to vote, so I thought I'd lead off by describing > the criteria I'll use. I've got a prioritized list... One criteria you missed was the willingness to learn, to know when you don't know something, and to commit yourself to a project that takes a lot of your time but you're still willing to do it (hmmm - that's three things. Fourth: a good sense of humor :) I don't consider myself a black-belt in the martial art of coding, which means I probably don't qualify based on the criteria you've given, so I guess I lost your vote. I think the core team needs to be composed of people who are competent coders, who can learn the architectural and coding issues as necessary, and who will represent the community at large. They must also have Vision, enough to see the project as a whole and not get lost in the details of the "next" neat thing. I'm sure that decisions will be made with input from anyone who gives it, and architectural issues will be discussed openly. Although I'm not a dues-paying member of the OpenACS community, I don't see that as an impediment. When an OpenACS / AOLserver issue arises, we'll work with the OpenACS community to find a solution that fits the AOLserver philosophy and resolves the issue. As far as I'm concerned, anything that makes AOLserver more capable and versatile while not sacrificing performance and the integrity of the core server and modules is a good thing. Should the AOL dev team members have a vote? Absolutely. They are involved with AOLserver as individuals, they run the largest sites that use AOLserver. Also, the AOL dev team is taking a risk with us as well as helping support the effort financially through the salaries of some of their employees. They don't need us, but we do need them, and the fact that they are now willing to take this risk speaks volumes given the tone of the past relationship between the AOLserver community and AOL. I'd say vote for who you feel most comfortable with. I'm probably voting for Zoran (you are *such* a sucker, BTW -- it was s easy to twist your arm ;) Why vote for me? I suppose because I've been doing something about bringing the community and AOL together for some time now, and I like to think that I had something to do with the progress we've made so far. Besides, who else is willing to run naked through the streets in service to "the cause"? /s. Note to myself: Oh my God -- I've become a Politician!
Re: [AOLSERVER] [OT] Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 01:53 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: On Friday 08 November 2002 13:40, Patrick Spence wrote: Heheh, my first thought was "but Voltron used 5 lions.. not 3" :) Which of the three Voltrons? :-) There was a Voltron with three parts. Am I missing something? I only recall the one with the lions and the one with the cars. What was the other one? (p.s., i liked the cars better) - Gabriel
Re: [AOLSERVER] [OT] Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
- Original Message - From: "Lamar Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:53 AM Subject: [AOLSERVER] [OT] Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long) > On Friday 08 November 2002 13:40, Patrick Spence wrote: > > Heheh, my first thought was "but Voltron used 5 lions.. not 3" :) > > Which of the three Voltrons? :-) There was a Voltron with three parts. The lion voltron.. :) the one that was most popular in my area.. then they had the vehicle one with boku lots of cars and other vehicles.. I know of a third one that I never saw so thats prolly the one with three parts.. :) > Way off-topic. Sorry. Its sorta related.. um, cause ... its all about modularity.. and aolserver has modules... :)
[AOLSERVER] [OT] Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
On Friday 08 November 2002 13:40, Patrick Spence wrote: > Heheh, my first thought was "but Voltron used 5 lions.. not 3" :) Which of the three Voltrons? :-) There was a Voltron with three parts. Way off-topic. Sorry. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
- Original Message - From: "Lamar Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long) > On Friday 08 November 2002 13:25, Peter M. Jansson wrote: > > here. Every core team member does not have to have every criterion, but > > the three candidates need to be able to join together, Voltron-like, to > > I don't know which is scarier. The fact he used 'Voltron' in a sentence, or > the fact that I grokked it. Lengthier reply to criteria later. Heheh, my first thought was "but Voltron used 5 lions.. not 3" :)
Re: [AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
On Friday 08 November 2002 13:25, Peter M. Jansson wrote: > here. Every core team member does not have to have every criterion, but > the three candidates need to be able to join together, Voltron-like, to I don't know which is scarier. The fact he used 'Voltron' in a sentence, or the fact that I grokked it. Lengthier reply to criteria later. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
[AOLSERVER] How I'll vote for core team members (long)
Since the core team members will be chosen by vote, I think it's useful to talk about how to decide for whom to vote, so I thought I'd lead off by describing the criteria I'll use. I've got a prioritized list I'll share here. Every core team member does not have to have every criterion, but the three candidates need to be able to join together, Voltron-like, to form a cohesive unit with all of the skills. So here's what I think is important: - Willingness to serve: This is a binary criterion and all it means is whether the nominee is willing to do the job, if elected. Let's move on.. . - Technical proficiency: I'm looking for a nominee with fairly serious code-fu. The core team should have several uber-alpha-geeks on it, and we' re lucky that AOL is supplying some good code-fu on their side of the table. AOLserver is about high-performance, multithreaded web applications written in C and Tcl (foremost) using a database for storage. The means the nominee needs to get C, Tcl, SQL, HTML, HTTP, concurrent programming, network programming, threading, signals, multiplexed I/O (poll/select), interprocess communications, and should have experience with these issues on more than one Unix variant (Windows experience is nice, too). I'll pardon some deficiencies in some advanced HTML design issues such as JavaScript and CSS, but the nominee should understand things like why the browser will bail on a page when the page loads fine but the external stylesheet can't be found. The nominee should also have a good grasp of SSL and cryptography issues, including how a cert chain works, why self-signed certs are not secure, and why an SSL-delivered page that links to a non-SSL image is not a secure page. - Knowledge of and experience with AOLserver: Well, it's the AOLserver core team, after all, so a nominee should have built at least one major application with AOLserver. It would be a big benefit to have someone who went through the transition from 2.x to 3.x so they understand what we gained with 3.x, and what we lost. It's also important the nominee isn't looking to make AOLserver into another Apache, IIS, or SunONE Server; there are valuable concepts and techniques to be borrowed from those other servers, but there has to be a difference between AOLserver and the other thing, or else we should just all use the other thing. - Knowledge of and experience with Tcl: Tcl and AOLserver share a lot of DNA, so a core team member should be completely comfortable with Tcl. Since 2.x, most of the steps taken in AOLserver have tightened the relationship with AOLserver and Tcl; I believe that at this point, you can do a good job of integrating another scripting language with AOLserver, but it will always be second-class when compared with Tcl. I'm not going to pass judgment on that -- AOLserver and Tcl have both gained a lot from the symbionism -- but it is a fact of AOLserver development. A core team member should not have the agenda of making AOLserver the best LISP webserver environment around, at the expense of Tcl. Since the nominee should be comfy with Tcl, they should also be comfortable with the processes around the current organization of Tcl/Tk, including how their core team works, but, while AOLserver and Tcl are like two peas in a pod in a lot of ways, they are _different_ peas, and the nominee should be ready for times when following the "Tcl Way" is not the right thing for AOLserver. - Knowledge of and experience with ACS or OpenACS: Users of ACS and its descendants are probably the largest community of AOLserver developers outside of AOL. If the core team doesn't have at least one member from the OpenACS community, then I think the Open Source effort is failing. Getting an OpenACS member on the core team is good for AOLserver, and it's good for OpenACS. - Experience with at least one other webserver product: This goes back to my ideas about differentiation between AOLserver and other products. Even if it's not clear exactly which products compete with AOLserver, I think a nominee should have done a major application with something else, whether it's Apache and Perl, JBoss, Zope, SunONE, or something else in the category. I think it's particularly good if the nominee has some significant experience with a mainstream product, rather than something with market share on the same order of magnitude as AOLserver. I think we need this because, for example, when someone says they want .htaccess compatibility, the core team members should understand how fundamentally different the .htaccess approach is from that of AOLserver, so a reasonable judgment can be made as to whether to set AOLserver down that road. - Respect for the community: As I see it, the core team members who come from the community are the representatives of the community; membership on the core team is not an opportunity to impose one's will on the community. If the core team is disagreeing with the community most of the time,
