logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Inactive PMC members
Date Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:08:30 GMT

On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> Michael Catanzarati is the founder of the log4cxx project. Marco
> Vassura is the founder of log4php. Mark Womack served as the previous
> chair of LS. I am the founder of log4j as well as the Logging Services
> project.
> Do you think excluding the above listed persons will serve the best
> interests of the Logging Services project?

Changing the bylaws requires 2/3 majority of active PMC members.   
Graduating log4net from the incubator may take 2/3 majority if you  
consider it "adoption of a new codebase".  Since there are currently  
12 PMC members, the missing 4 would be sufficient to block all but  
unanimous decisions from the other PMC members when a vote requires  
2/3 majority.  As a PMC member, they should be monitoring this  
mailing list and I have sent them an individual email to request that  
they update this mailing list on their status and inform them that  
there may be upcoming votes that require their participation.  I  
would not want to declare them emeritus for procedural reasons  
without giving them ample opportunity to make their presence known.

> I'd would also like to remind you that I recently nominated a
> well-respected and longtime contributor to the log4j project as a
> committer only to be (regrettably) blocked for using the
> "wrong" mailing list.
> The log4j project lost an opportunity to add a valuable contributor to
> its list of committers. Of course, you could still put your weight
> behind that nomination. (It's not too late.)

I assume that you are discussing the discussion on  
private@logging.apache.org on 2006-10-25 and following.  I can't  
quote your message from the private list, but my response was:

> I haven't found the email that described to migration away from  
> pmc@ mailing lists to private@ mailing lists, but I believe the  
> general idea was private@ should only be used when the discussion  
> required confidentiality.  Voting on a new committer or PMC member  
> might be a little sensitive, but you'd want to have a public record  
> of the vote and so it should be on one of the publicly archived  
> mailing lists.  Also, if a person does not have a history of  
> submitting patches that would allow us to judge his code-fu, but  
> you believe that he can contribute to project governance, then  
> possibly voting on him as a PMC member makes more sense (which  
> would occur on the general@logging mailing list).
> Let's move this discussion to general@logging.apache.org if you  
> wish to talk about process or call a vote on PMC membership or  
> log4j-dev@logging.apache.org if you wish to call a vote for log4j  
> commit rights.  If there are reasons that you believe this should  
> remain confidential, discussion can remain here or better, be held  
> on the general mailing lists but with specific names avoided.

http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#mailing-list-naming-policy use of  
the private mailing list and specifically mention that "nominees for  
project, project committee or Foundation membership" can be held on  
private@logging.apache.org.  I did not have that link at the time and  
was recalling on just a general impression that private@ should  
rarely be used.

The LS bylaws state that a new committer is voted on my the active  
members of the relevant sub-project and as private@ is only available  
to PMC members it can't be a forum for a subproject vote without  
excluding non-PMC committers.  It does appear that you could nominate  
an individual as a PMC member on private@ and hold all the  
conversation about the individual on the private list.

View raw message