ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Atherton <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Resolution for Ant top level project
Date Mon, 04 Nov 2002 19:22:34 GMT
At 12:11 AM 11/5/2002 +1100, Conor MacNeill wrote:

>As for the make up of the PMC, I think we should aim for a PMC comprising 
>all active committers. This may be  a good opportunity to trim the Ant 
>committer list to those who are currently active.

+1 to both of these statements.

>1. For/Against the draft (as revised after discussions) being sent to the 

+1 on it being submitted after required revisions, if any. So my vote is 
not on submitting this particular draft, but on using it as the basis for 
the resolution that is eventually sent.

>2. Whether you would be prepared to serve on the Ant PMC in the event the 
>resolution is approved by ant-dev and the board.


>To handle inactive committers, I suggest we could proceed by contacting 
>any committer who did not vote to confirm whether they wish to remain an 
>Ant committer, PMC member, PMC member - emeritus, etc.

I think this is a reasonable approach, although I would make allowances for 
those unable to respond for a time due to RL interference.

>We would also need to choose an initial PMC chairman. I guess each voter 
>could indicate their willingness to act as chairman. If there is more than 
>one, we will probably require an additional vote.

Another option would be to allow the PMC to nominate and elect the chair 
from their number rather than taking a vote of committers (who in the 
future may or may not be the same group). That means naming the chairperson 
would not need to be part of this "bootstrapping" resolution but would be 
the first order of business for the PMC when it is formed. I think that 
would simplify the process of finalizing the resolution, since the question 
of who the chair is wouldn't need to be resolved first. Just an idea.

Based on this draft resolution, it looks like the position of chair is 
essentially "for life", until someone chooses to leave. Is this the normal 
procedure within Apache? Am I misreading the resolution? And wouldn't it be 
better to define the terms of service for the chairperson in the bylaws 
rather than within this resolution? Would the declaration in the resolution 
be binding on the terms allowed in the bylaws?

>Draft Resolution

The question has come up whether subprojects should be allowed in Ant. I 
think having that flexibility is a good thing. People shouldn't get too 
hung up on specifics. Whether Gump or Maven or Centipede or Antidote should 
be a subproject is irrelevant to the question of whether Ant should allow 
subprojects at all. The question should be, "Can you imagine a situation 
where you would want subprojects to come under the Ant umbrella?" I can, so 
I am +1 on allowing for subprojects in the resolution.

Apart from these discussion points, the draft looks good to me. Thanks for 
putting it together.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message