[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       forrest-dev
Subject:    Re: [VOTE] draft Forrest Project Guidelines: Roles and
From:       David Crossley <crossley () apache ! org>
Date:       2004-06-30 13:27:06
Message-ID: 1088602024.22806.282.camel () ighp
[Download RAW message or body]

:-) I was trying to direct comments away from this
old vote thread, but never mind let us talk about
it anywhere.

More below ...

Dave Brondsema wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > > I know I'm in error in not having checked it before,
> >
> > Everybody needs to help.
> >
> > > but now that I have
> > > seen it I don't read in it the fact that simple committers
> > > cannot vote (as instead I would prefer).
> >
> > Voting is the next task to add to the document.
> > We had already said that we would identify the roles
> > and responsibilities first. Though you are right, such
> > things are intertwined.
> 
> I am satisfied with the roles and responsibilities, except where they are
> related to moving from one role to another (i.e. voting).  Let's move on
> to discussing those areas.

Yep.

> >From Committers, "After a successful vote,".  A successful vote by whom?

In my opinion, by the other committers.

> >From PMC, "While they are active, they are part of the PMC".
> I think this is a little unclear.

Yes this is the part that worried me too.

> Committers can join and disjoin from the PMC
> whenever they want?

I gather so. That is how we do it at Cocoon.

> Mailing list membership is the indicator of PMC
> membership? We should also mention what the PMC does when a
> committer joins/disjoins it (from David's recent email: "acking you with
> board@ and adding you to the committee list").  Does that just mean
> approve his/her subscription to the mailing list?  Or is the "committee
> list" something else?

The definitive list is in the committers CVS module
at board/committee-info.txt

Joining the PMC is a two-step process. Subscribe to the
mailing list, which one of the normal list moderators
will deal with. Seek acknowledgement from the board:
Our chair sends them email, they ack, 72 hours pass,
we add to committee-info.txt

> > > Also, wouldn't it be better just to refer to the main
> > > Apache document for this, and just clarify some points?
> >
> > That might be possible (though that main document needs
> > some enhancements). However most other projects seem
> > to also define the roles in their Guidelines. Another
> > issue is that we are defining an extra role that no other
> > project uses yet.
> 
> What extra role?  I see user, developer, committer, and PMC on our page
> and on the ASF roles apge.

The notion discussed earlier in the [DRAFT] thread,
of a committer who is only there to do a task-based
job for a short time. The words so far, try to not make
a big deal out of that, but leave the way open.

Committer versus Project Management Committer.

> A standalone document is nice, but some more lengthy issue explanations
> (like defining voting) can just be referenced.  And then we specify in our
> document how voting is used for Forrest.

Yes. However, we need to find, or help to fix, a decent definition
of voting. When i look around the other project guidelines and
the top-level docs, i see some very complex descriptions.

-- 
David Crossley

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]