AJAX Toolkit Framework Proposal

[geirm]

On Dec 22, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Instead, the
>> question is whether it also has the authority (and
>> responsibility) to decide who enters Incubation or not.
>>
>
> FWIW, I have never envisioned a case where the Incubator
> would be at odds with the desires of the PMCs and
> the members. I would see such as thing (denying
> acceptance) as something that would require as
> much reason and rationale as a code-based veto
> would; much more so, in fact.

I can easily see a case where the Incubator is at odds with the  
desire of a PMC.  That is a good thing, IMO - a good check & balance.

In the event that the Incubator PMC is at odds with the membership or  
the general Apache community at large, we have a *huge* problem.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
geirm@...



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[dims]

Sam,

it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that
the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
better checked by outsiders ("Incubator PMC"), since the insiders ("WS
PMC") may be biased.

Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents (by
internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat
folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks
from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC
already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows
about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input).

Thanks,
dims

On 12/23/05, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
> >>
> >>> So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
> >>> the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
> >>
> >> Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC)
> >> and I do have a vote here.
> >
> > It's interesting to note that if Dims would have, as he suggested
> > in one of his Email messages, to simply have the WS PMC vote
> > on the proposal as is, and it would have passed it, Roy's
> > concerns would have been totally moot. So no matter how good
> > or vague the proposal, if voted on by a PMC, it's allowed.
>
> A bunch of hypotheticals in there.
>
> If the WS-PMC had voted to approve a proposal that was "empty of
> significant content", then I would question the viability of that PMC.
>
> But as it is, that never happened.  A draft proposal was created, it was
> reviewed by others, updated, and the objection based on lack of content
> was dropped.  That could very well have happened in the WS PMC as well
> as here.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[geirm]

On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
>> On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
>>>> How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a  
>>>> project in without approval of the incubator PMC?  Just look at  
>>>> the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS  
>>>> PMC.   There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits.  
>>>> The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is  
>>>> good enough to merit graduation.
>>>
>>> Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do.  You don't
>>> have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at
>>> the ASF.  You don't have the right to say that one project is more
>>> deserving of our resources than some other project.  What you do  
>>> have
>>> is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and
>>> to vote against their graduation if you so desire.
>>
>> So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of  
>> the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
>
> Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC)
> and I do have a vote here.  In any case, I objected to the proposal
> because it was empty of significant content, and removed by objection
> once it was filled.  I did not prevent them from working on an
> architecture that I still believe to be a waste of time -- I only
> made sure that they all agreed on what they wanted to work on,
> because I think that is a minimum for any collaboration.

As the sponsor/champion of Tuscany, I'll be the first to admit that  
Roy was actually right on with his criticism.

The proposal didn't reflect what the proposers were actually  
thinking, and it forced the team to review and rewrite, and the  
result is IMO a stronger, clearer proposal and statement of intent.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
geirm@...



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[geirm]

On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:19 AM, Ted Leung wrote:

>
> On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's because an Apache project is an EFFORT of the ASF.  It is not
>> some diploma that people receive at the end of graduation.  
>> Everything
>> done at the ASF is an Apache project.  Some are organized better than
>> others, and some are allowed to make their own release decisions, but
>> all of them are collaborative projects using ASF infrastructure and
>> following the literal meaning of Contributor as defined in our  
>> license.
>> And, when needed, the board can terminate a project whether it is in
>> the incubator or not.
>
> To us an Apache project is an effort of the ASF.   To the majority  
> of people out there, being an Apache project (rightly or wrongly)  
> is branding stamp.   You might not like it, but that's how many  
> people treat it.  And that's why one of the first things a company  
> wants do when it proposes incubation is issue a press release.

There are lots of bad reasons to come to the ASF and high on my list  
is "to take advantage of the brand".

Maybe then we address that issue head-on, and simply ask that a  
contributing company doesn't do a press release for n months after  
entering incubation?  And when the project graduates, we do a good  
job assisting them with a joint release or something as the reward.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
geirm@...



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[geirm]

On Dec 23, 2005, at 4:07 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

>
> If any ASF PMC believes it is in the best interest of the  
> Foundation to
> accept a podling and they are willing to dedicate resources  
> ("people") -
> then anyone on the Incubator PMC has no standing to challenge that
> decision.  When a PMC approves a podling, the only thing the  
> Incubator PMC
> can decide is whether the project can "leave" the Incubator.
>
> Even without a PMC, if *one* of our members out there thinks a  
> project is
> worth doing and they can write something mildly resembling a  
> charter down
> on paper, that's all I need to hear for a +1.  The project *they*  
> believe
> in deserves the institutional support of the Foundation.  We can  
> not be
> second-guessing people's motives as to why they believe it's a good  
> idea.

I am no longer convinced of this.  Having the Incubator PMC there as  
a "check and balance" is a good thing as it requires engagement from  
others interested in this aspect of ASF life.  It prevents one  
individual or one PMC from being able to make significant social or  
technological change, or at least ensure that there is a  
theoretically impartial observer keeping track.  It allows interested  
members and other community members to "put their money where their  
mouth is" on this topic, and join the Incubator PMC to help out.

I think that there's little downside to this.  A check on the  
Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the  
board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being  
treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a  
way they disagreed with.

And the board has to answer to the membership.

>
> Cynics like me are the *worst* possible judges of what's cool and  
> what's
> not.  That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire  
> thread: people
> are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects.  How?  On what  
> basis?

I agree here - I would never want to exclude based on technology.  I  
do the thought experiment from time to time and ask myself which  
projects I would have excluded if ordered to limit growth at the ASF,  
and I never have a good answer. Maybe not let those "toaster language  
bytecode people" in?  I think our current java communities are a  
*huge* asset.  How about the pointy-bracket folks?

We need to actually increase our technical diversity here - we have  
no real Ruby-oriented communities, nor any coherent .NET identity,  
and I think that's going to hurt us in the long run.

>
> To do so is to bang our collective heads on the wall: closing our  
> borders
> is to forget where we came from and why we're here at all.  -- justin
>

+1

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
geirm@...



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Jim Jagielski]

On Dec 23, 2005, at 4:07 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire thread: people
> are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects.  How?  On what  
> basis?
>

In my mind, there are 2 considerations: What is in the best interest
of the PMC, and what is in the best interest of the ASF. For
the vast majority of the time, the 2 dovetail v. nicely, and
there are no problems. However, it is possible for things to
conflict, and something that a PMC wants to not coincide with
the best interests of the ASF. Again, I would remind people
of the origin problems with Jakarta as an example.

I feel that the board has the responsibility to look after
what is in the best interests of the ASF. I also feel that
they have delegated this responsibility, as far as "monitoring
and regulating" new projects to the Incubator.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Sam Ruby-2]

Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Sam,
>
> it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
> question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that
> the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
> better checked by outsiders ("Incubator PMC"), since the insiders ("WS
> PMC") may be biased.

I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to watch to make sure
that existing projects stay to their charters - that's the job of the board.

> Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents (by
> internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat
> folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks
> from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC
> already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows
> about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input).

Again, I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to enforce scope.
  Furthermore, acceptance by the incubator is the start of a process,
not the end of it.  There should be adequate opportunity for people to
provide input during the course of incubation.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[dims]

Sounds good to me (hopefully all our TLP's will have charters soon!!).

-- dims

On 12/23/05, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:

> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Sam,
> >
> > it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
> > question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that
> > the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
> > better checked by outsiders ("Incubator PMC"), since the insiders ("WS
> > PMC") may be biased.
>
> I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to watch to make sure
> that existing projects stay to their charters - that's the job of the board.
>
> > Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents (by
> > internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat
> > folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks
> > from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC
> > already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows
> > about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input).
>
> Again, I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to enforce scope.
>   Furthermore, acceptance by the incubator is the start of a process,
> not the end of it.  There should be adequate opportunity for people to
> provide input during the course of incubation.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[geirm]

Every TLP has an explicit charter when created by the board in the  
resolution that creates them.  How they interpret that and change  
with the shifting sands of technology style is up to them....

geir

On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:

> Sounds good to me (hopefully all our TLP's will have charters soon!!).
>
> -- dims
>
> On 12/23/05, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
>> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>> Sam,
>>>
>>> it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
>>> question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure  
>>> that
>>> the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
>>> better checked by outsiders ("Incubator PMC"), since the insiders  
>>> ("WS
>>> PMC") may be biased.
>>
>> I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to watch to make sure
>> that existing projects stay to their charters - that's the job of  
>> the board.
>>
>>> Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents  
>>> (by
>>> internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat
>>> folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks
>>> from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC
>>> already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows
>>> about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input).
>>
>> Again, I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to enforce  
>> scope.
>>   Furthermore, acceptance by the incubator is the start of a process,
>> not the end of it.  There should be adequate opportunity for  
>> people to
>> provide input during the course of incubation.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
geirm@...



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I am no longer convinced of this.  Having the Incubator PMC there as  
> a "check and balance" is a good thing as it requires engagement from  
> others interested in this aspect of ASF life.  It prevents one  
> individual or one PMC from being able to make significant social or  
> technological change, or at least ensure that there is a  
> theoretically impartial observer keeping track.  It allows interested  
> members and other community members to "put their money where their  
> mouth is" on this topic, and join the Incubator PMC to help out.

I don't think that can scale appropriately.

Why would the Incubator PMC know more about whether mod_ftp is a good fit
for the Foundation than the entire HTTP Server PMC?

> I think that there's little downside to this.  A check on the  
> Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the  
> board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being  
> treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a  
> way they disagreed with.
>
> And the board has to answer to the membership.

I believe that there is *major* downside to having the Incubator PMC
second-guess the decisions of other PMCs.

If someone doesn't like the decision of a PMC, they shouldn't be able to
use the Inucbator PMC as cover for their attacks.  People who don't like
what's going on in that PMC should confront that PMC directly.  If they
don't like what's going on in that PMC and have tried to redress their
grievances directly, they can go to the Board.

Although, the Board is rightly wary of interposing itself in technical
decisions.  We have no idea what makes technical sense or not either.

> >Cynics like me are the *worst* possible judges of what's cool and  
> >what's
> >not.  That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire  
> >thread: people
> >are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects.  How?  On what  
> >basis?
>
> I agree here - I would never want to exclude based on technology.  I  
> do the thought experiment from time to time and ask myself which  
> projects I would have excluded if ordered to limit growth at the ASF,  
> and I never have a good answer. Maybe not let those "toaster language  
> bytecode people" in?  I think our current java communities are a  
> *huge* asset.  How about the pointy-bracket folks?
>
> We need to actually increase our technical diversity here - we have  
> no real Ruby-oriented communities, nor any coherent .NET identity,  
> and I think that's going to hurt us in the long run.

That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous.  The foundation
should go where our PMCs and our members want.  -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[dims]

Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it
needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it.  right? AND if the PMC does
not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right?

You know where i am going with this, if you read between the lines...

-- dims

On 12/23/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm@...> wrote:

> Every TLP has an explicit charter when created by the board in the
> resolution that creates them.  How they interpret that and change
> with the shifting sands of technology style is up to them....
>
> geir
>
> On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Sounds good to me (hopefully all our TLP's will have charters soon!!).
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 12/23/05, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>> Sam,
> >>>
> >>> it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
> >>> question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure
> >>> that
> >>> the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
> >>> better checked by outsiders ("Incubator PMC"), since the insiders
> >>> ("WS
> >>> PMC") may be biased.
> >>
> >> I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to watch to make sure
> >> that existing projects stay to their charters - that's the job of
> >> the board.
> >>
> >>> Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents
> >>> (by
> >>> internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat
> >>> folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks
> >>> from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC
> >>> already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows
> >>> about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input).
> >>
> >> Again, I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to enforce
> >> scope.
> >>   Furthermore, acceptance by the incubator is the start of a process,
> >> not the end of it.  There should be adequate opportunity for
> >> people to
> >> provide input during the course of incubation.
> >>
> >> - Sam Ruby
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> >
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
> geirm@...
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[geirm]

On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> I am no longer convinced of this.  Having the Incubator PMC there as
>> a "check and balance" is a good thing as it requires engagement from
>> others interested in this aspect of ASF life.  It prevents one
>> individual or one PMC from being able to make significant social or
>> technological change, or at least ensure that there is a
>> theoretically impartial observer keeping track.  It allows interested
>> members and other community members to "put their money where their
>> mouth is" on this topic, and join the Incubator PMC to help out.
>
> I don't think that can scale appropriately.
>
> Why would the Incubator PMC know more about whether mod_ftp is a  
> good fit
> for the Foundation than the entire HTTP Server PMC?

I certainly agree that in 99% of the cases, this would be the case,  
and I would never expect the Incubator PMC to ever stand in the way  
of any proposal unless there is good reason of broader scope.  
Healthy PMCs will IMO always do the right thing.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Incubator having to vote  
and therefore do some due-diligence.  It also does give the Incubator  
PMC some control over rate of growth.  I'm worried about growth, but  
not anti-, but certainly worry about the incubator being stretched  
too thin to effectively provide the legal oversight and community  
shaping.  Our incoming rate is faster than the outgoing rate - at  
what point do we have more than we can handle?

Imagine if every PMC did what the Geronimo PMC just did, and invited  
in say 5 new projects (as is their right).

That's about 150 new podlings at once.  How would we deal with that?  
I don't expect this to happen, but maybe you can see my point.

>
>> I think that there's little downside to this.  A check on the
>> Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the
>> board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being
>> treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a
>> way they disagreed with.
>>
>> And the board has to answer to the membership.
>
> I believe that there is *major* downside to having the Incubator PMC
> second-guess the decisions of other PMCs.
>
> If someone doesn't like the decision of a PMC, they shouldn't be  
> able to
> use the Inucbator PMC as cover for their attacks.  People who don't  
> like
> what's going on in that PMC should confront that PMC directly.  If  
> they
> don't like what's going on in that PMC and have tried to redress their
> grievances directly, they can go to the Board.

I'm assuming a healthy Incubator PMC here - not one in which one  
person can leverage to attack a PMC.

> Although, the Board is rightly wary of interposing itself in technical
> decisions.  We have no idea what makes technical sense or not either.

Right - I wouldn't think that the Incubator PMC would want to make  
decisions based on technical merit either.  That's a non-starter - we  
have to assume that each PMC is the most clueful in their technology  
domain.

But code sources, committer diversity, availability of volunteer  
resources in and around the incubator all are things we can  
consider.  Like it or not, the INcubator PMC is the locus of these  
efforts, and it's real resources that are needed for each podling.

>
>>> Cynics like me are the *worst* possible judges of what's cool and
>>> what's
>>> not.  That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire
>>> thread: people
>>> are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects.  How?  On what
>>> basis?
>>
>> I agree here - I would never want to exclude based on technology.  I
>> do the thought experiment from time to time and ask myself which
>> projects I would have excluded if ordered to limit growth at the ASF,
>> and I never have a good answer. Maybe not let those "toaster language
>> bytecode people" in?  I think our current java communities are a
>> *huge* asset.  How about the pointy-bracket folks?
>>
>> We need to actually increase our technical diversity here - we have
>> no real Ruby-oriented communities, nor any coherent .NET identity,
>> and I think that's going to hurt us in the long run.
>
> That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous.  The  
> foundation
> should go where our PMCs and our members want.  -- justin

It's dangerous, but it's also a consideration of a vocal and active  
part of the membership.  It can't be ignored.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
geirm@...



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[geirm]

On Dec 23, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:

> Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it
> needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it.  right? AND if the PMC does
> not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right?
>
> You know where i am going with this, if you read between the lines...

There's lots of places to go with this :)  I guess we need to clarify  
if we are talking about the charter as from the baord "Thou shalt do  
webservices" which I do think is up to the board to change (in  
conjunction with the PMC) or the project bylaws/guidlines setup  
entirely by the PMC "We shalt to webservices in this manner...."

I believe that many projects do not conform precisely to their  
project charter but still work in healthy and collaborative ways...

geir

>
> -- dims
>
> On 12/23/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm@...> wrote:
>> Every TLP has an explicit charter when created by the board in the
>> resolution that creates them.  How they interpret that and change
>> with the shifting sands of technology style is up to them....
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds good to me (hopefully all our TLP's will have charters  
>>> soon!!).
>>>
>>> -- dims
>>>
>>> On 12/23/05, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
>>>> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>> Sam,
>>>>>
>>>>> it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
>>>>> question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure
>>>>> that
>>>>> the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
>>>>> better checked by outsiders ("Incubator PMC"), since the insiders
>>>>> ("WS
>>>>> PMC") may be biased.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to watch to make  
>>>> sure
>>>> that existing projects stay to their charters - that's the job of
>>>> the board.
>>>>
>>>>> Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents
>>>>> (by
>>>>> internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat
>>>>> folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks
>>>>> from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC
>>>>> already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows
>>>>> about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant  
>>>>> input).
>>>>
>>>> Again, I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to enforce
>>>> scope.
>>>>   Furthermore, acceptance by the incubator is the start of a  
>>>> process,
>>>> not the end of it.  There should be adequate opportunity for
>>>> people to
>>>> provide input during the course of incubation.
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
>> geirm@...
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
geirm@...



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Erik Abele]

On 23.12.2005, at 16:57, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> ...
>> I think that there's little downside to this.  A check on the
>> Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the
>> board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being
>> treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a
>> way they disagreed with.
>> And the board has to answer to the membership.
>
> I believe that there is *major* downside to having the Incubator PMC
> second-guess the decisions of other PMCs.

+1.

> If someone doesn't like the decision of a PMC, they shouldn't be  
> able to
> use the Inucbator PMC as cover for their attacks.  People who don't  
> like
> what's going on in that PMC should confront that PMC directly.  If  
> they
> don't like what's going on in that PMC and have tried to redress their
> grievances directly, they can go to the Board.

+1.

> ...
>> We need to actually increase our technical diversity here - we have
>> no real Ruby-oriented communities, nor any coherent .NET identity,
>> and I think that's going to hurt us in the long run.
>
> That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous.  The  
> foundation
> should go where our PMCs and our members want.  -- justin

I agree that it is very dangerous talking about limits ab initio -  
but on the other hand I think it is very important to talk about  
growth. I'm not sure what the outcome of this discussion will bring,  
but I think we have seen enough concerns that it at least warrants a  
discussion (not conclusions!).

Maybe we find out it is enough to more efficently control PR  
activities or to require two or more mentors or ... I don't know but  
I'd like to explore the possibilities.

(I've written about all the mentioned concerns on members@ but  
unfortunately nobody picked up the list so far.)

Cheers,
Erik