ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Resolution for Ant top level project
Date Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:12:03 GMT
Conor MacNeill wrote:

> 1. Why do this?

> Many of you may not be aware of recent discussions on the reorg and
> community mailing lists. Many issues have come up about the management of

IMO this is the worse reason to do it. There is no clear legal position, and
there are other solutions. 

There are some good reasons to do it - like ability to better organize 
ant and the related ant projects. Maybe we'll want to split the optional
tasks in separate sub-projects, or get all build-related projects under
the same umbrella. ( I'm not saying I want that - but there are valid 

> Scope
> The proposed scope was "the creation and maintenance of open-source
> software related to the Apache Ant build tool" which is, as I indicated, a
> little recursive. It is definitely not intended that Ant would grow to a
> tools container project as we would just come back to where we are now.
> So, tools such as Gump and maven which build upon Ant would not be part of
> the Ant project. OTOH, a series of projects for a set of task libraries
> would be in scope. IMHO, Antidote would be in scope as would ant-contrib.

Gump ( or a similar tool ) could very well be part of ant scope ( it is 
open-source software related to apache ant build tool, and it may have some 
specific task libs ). I think it should be a case-by-case decision, just 
like in jakarta.

I agree that sets of task libraries as ant subprojects would be the 
best fit. 

> So how about this "the creation and maintenance of open-source software
> related to the Apache Ant build tool and supporting task libraries"? Not
> sure if that is better - does anyone have any better words?

Sounds fine.

> It is important to get the scope right, without it being too narrow.
> Another of the issues raised about the Jakarta project is how out of scope
> many of the Jakarta subprojects are, Ant being used as a prime example.

People will raise issues doesn't matter what :-) The real question
is what is best for the community. The scope can be changed if needed
( like anything else ).

> PMC Chair
> We will need to choose a chair for the board resolution. The chair becomes
> an officer of the ASF and therefore needs to be approved by the board as
> part of the resolution. Ideas about how we can choose the chair are
> welcome although the process might depend on how many candidates there
> are.

I don't know if the chair must be ASF member - but probably it would help
if he is. 
I would propose Stefan or Conor.

> The term of the chair and the mode of future elections would be covered by
> the bylaws of the Ant project. The development of these would b the first
> task of the new PMC. I would expect the chair to be elected by the PMC
> annually as is currently done for the Jakarta PMC. I don't think some sort
> of lifetime appointment is the way to go.

And probably a time limit would also be good ( like 2 terms ).

> Bylaws
> As I said above we will need to come up with a set of bylaws that govern
> the operation of the Ant project. These will cover things such as the
> terms of the Chair, how the chair is elected, how the PMC is composed, how
> PMC decisions are made, concepts such as emeritus status, adding new
> members, etc. Here I would expect that we would not have anything peculiar
> to Ant, something like Jakarta or httpd would be a good basis.

Few important issues:
- revolution rules ( those are specific to jakarta AFAIK - and I think
they should be included in the bylaws or clarified ). ( well, the implicit
majority-gets-the-name rule cover that, so we can skip it )

- if ant will have sub-projects - will we have multiple communities or
a single community ( like jakarta-commons ) ?

- should we host an 'open sub-project' - open to jakarta and apache 
committers - for contributed tasks ? For example tomcat people could
maintain tomcat-related tasks. A sort of ant-commons :-)

- should we have a sandbox ( like jakarta-commons-sandbox ) for ant-specific
work ?

> I'd be happy to have a discussion now, to try and capture the essential
> elements of the bylaws if there is interest.

I would be very unhappy if we make the move without discussing all the 
details ( before !).

I really don't understand how the board works - i.e. aprove projects without
clear bylaws. I would very much like the vote on this be after we have
the bylaws and all those details.


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

View raw message