[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] yesterday asking about the updated scope but
> have yet to hear a reply.
interesting, since i sent a message about this to the board list
a couple of hours before you sent this. i guess i forgot the
appropriate ccs. attached.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
--- Begin Message ---
bloody hell.
can we all just calm down here, please, everybody? let's
stop bristling and acting like scorched cats.
jason, dIon: the charter in the resolution that went
to the board was:
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software related to Java software development,
maintenance, and comprehension, for distribution at no charge
to the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Maven PMC", be and hereby
is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the Maven PMC be and hereby is responsible for
the creation and maintenance of software related to Java
software development, maintenance, and comprehension, based on
software licensed to the Foundation; and be it further
in the special board meeting, the board concluded that 'creation and
maintenance of open-source software related to Java software development,
maintenance, and comprehension' was too broad by far, encompassing
rather more than just the existing maven project or even any reasonable
expansion of same. so the resolution was not voted. not voted *down*,
but not voted *at all*. (someone else on the board correct me if i'm
misremembering.)
jason, you asked and greg answered:
>>> How does the resolution need to be altered?
>
>
> Tighten up the charter. Dirk had some ideas, but it seems that he hasn't
> posted some ideas for new text.
yesterday you did just that, and sent:
> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in
> the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with
> the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
> open-source software related to Java software development tools
> which are predicated on the use of Maven's Project Object Model (POM),
> for distribution at no charge to the public.
i think that is an appropriate narrowing of scope, though it
seems a bit self-referential.
so let's start from here, shall we? is the above wording satisfactory
to the maven people? is it satisfactory to the board? if not in either
case, let's try to constructively fix it, and leave personalities out of
it. let's work *together*.
and on the matter of 'well, cocoon was able to refine their charter
after creation, why can't we?' the short answer is that the board
doesn't want to get into a habit of having to revisit approved projects
to see if they've completed the required retrofit. in other words,
the cocoon scenario should be considered an exception -- and one to be
rued -- and not the rule. let's get it right the first time so it doesn't
have to be revisited and we can all keep moving forward.
all imho.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:09, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in
> > the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with
> > the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
> > Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
> > open-source software related to Java software development tools
> > which are predicated on the use of Maven's Project Object Model (POM),
> > for distribution at no charge to the public.
>
> i think that is an appropriate narrowing of scope, though it
> seems a bit self-referential.
>
> so let's start from here, shall we? is the above wording satisfactory
> to the maven people?
None of the developers had a problem with it. We are interested in
pursuing the creation of tools based on a coherent object model for a
Java-based project.
> is it satisfactory to the board? if not in either
> case, let's try to constructively fix it, and leave personalities out of
> it. let's work *together*.
Ok, all I wanted was this: some feedback on the resolution.
> and on the matter of 'well, cocoon was able to refine their charter
> after creation, why can't we?' the short answer is that the board
> doesn't want to get into a
