From generalpaul24@example.com Thu Feb 08 18:28:24 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 4771 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 18:28:22 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 18:28:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 5945 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 18:28:29 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 5900 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 18:28:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 5889 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2007 18:28:28 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:28:28 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:28:17 -0800 Received: (qmail 15285 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 18:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (paul24@example.com@83.161.120.155 with plain) by smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 18:27:52 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: EECwyl8VM1nx1QS6p3tKGlw2lW0hYUYgkdmQkvDyt33.W_w_aalpEuYVSZbRVkTzDS1lNink3n4ejUuRm3JIa6JARCFSh5PO_xWrQ_ioMrTwJkvn2_OHnk58ZgOK2j9BLfd54lGW2Fh5TSH7iCoa9Ye6QPgGuWl33GoiAB2hAGaMLrGflu_L8Pa8YFKq Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: Logging General <paul24@example.com> From: Curt Arnold <paul24@example.com> Subject: Changing or repealing the Logging Services bylaws Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:27:44 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org The current Logging Services bylaws effectively make the project an umbrella covering several self-governing subprojects (log4j, log4cxx, ...). The current bylaws mandate a two-stage vote for many actions, an advisory vote at the subproject level followed by a binding vote at the PMC level. For the log4j subproject, the two stage vote is a time-consuming annoyance as the PMC and log4j committers are very close to being the same set of people. For log4cxx and log4net, reaching a quorum for the advisory vote can be at least an obstacle. For chainsaw, it has resulted in a weird hybrid where chainsaw has its own project in the SVN and releases, but is part of the log4j project for quorum issues (and potentially other issues). In addition, there are some definitions in the bylaws (IIRC some of the voting definitions) that conflict with other definitions in more authoritative Apache documents. There have been previous discussions on bylaw changes to address these issues, for example on paul24@example.com on 2005-07-01 (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-logging- general&m=112024592311861&w=2) which referenced earlier discussion on the private pmc list, but there was no action taken. The Board Resolution forming the LS PMC mandated the initial PMC create a set of bylaws for the project (http://logging.apache.org/ site/mission-statement.html). The term "guidelines" appears to be currently preferred for project level statements to avoid the legal implications of bylaws. For example, the ASF Bylaws (http:// www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html) are a legal document that governs the corporation and has to conform to corporate governance laws in the State of Delaware. Section 6.3 of the ASF Bylaws (http://www.apache.org/foundation/ bylaws.html) places responsibility to establish rules and procedures on the PMC chair. There was an discussion on paul24@example.com on 2005-09-12 that discussed the confusing state of ASF project bylaws (http:// thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/6144/focus=6147). I thought that I recently saw a thread on paul24@example.com that argued against projects having bylaws (or guidelines) of their own as the ASF bylaws and other documents were sufficient, but unfortunately I have not been able to find that thread. I would like to take steps that result in: The LS project to be a single project with any number of products. The PMC being the only decision making body. Either no project guideline document or one that heavily defers to, not duplicate or conflict with, http://www.apache.org documents. A set of evolving process documents that describe best practices on the project. I would appreciate comments and will try to work on a draft. A board report is due for the Feb 21st meeting. It would be great to get this and several other issues resolved in the next week or so in order to clear out some long pending issues. From generalpaul24@example.com Thu Feb 08 18:49:35 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 12459 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 18:49:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 18:49:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 54692 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 18:49:39 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 54657 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 18:49:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 54646 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2007 18:49:39 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:49:39 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of paul24@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail.gmx.net) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:49:29 -0800 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Feb 2007 18:49:08 -0000 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+nXpds0zunZjPMh4XCpYc29s8bk43GPacnlib9Wc Ig0w== Message-ID: <paul24@example.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:49:30 +0100 From: Boris Unckel <paul24@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Logging General <paul24@example.com> Subject: Re: Changing or repealing the Logging Services bylaws References: <paul24@example.com> In-Reply-To: <paul24@example.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090403040303070505000409" X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090403040303070505000409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Curt Arnold wrote: > > I would like to take steps that result in: > > > > The LS project to be a single project with any number of products. > > > > The PMC being the only decision making body. > > > > Either no project guideline document or one that heavily defers to, > > not duplicate or conflict with, http://www.apache.org documents. > > > > A set of evolving process documents that describe best practices on > > the project. > > > > I would appreciate comments and will try to work on a draft. A board > > report is due for the Feb 21st meeting. It would be great to get this > > and several other issues resolved in the next week or so in order to > > clear out some long pending issues. > > > +1 Keep it simple, reduce bureaucracy. Regards Boris --------------090403040303070505000409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <pre wrap="">Hi, Curt Arnold wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>I would like to take steps that result in: <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt;</span> <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>The LS project to be a single project with any number of products. <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt;</span> <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>The PMC being the only decision making body. <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt;</span> <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>Either no project guideline document or one that heavily defers to, <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>not duplicate or conflict with, <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apache.org">http://www.apache.org</a> documents. <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt;</span> <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>A set of evolving process documents that describe best practices on <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>the project. <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt;</span> <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>I would appreciate comments and will try to work on a draft. A board <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>report is due for the Feb 21st meeting. It would be great to get this <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>and several other issues resolved in the next week or so in order to <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>clear out some long pending issues. <span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt;</span> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->+1 Keep it simple, reduce bureaucracy. Regards Boris </pre> </body> </html> --------------090403040303070505000409-- From generalpaul24@example.com Thu Feb 08 20:45:07 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 55676 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 20:45:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 20:45:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 67259 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 20:45:12 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 67222 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 20:45:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 67211 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2007 20:45:12 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:45:12 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:45:01 -0800 Received: (qmail 92166 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 20:44:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (paul24@example.com@83.161.120.155 with plain) by smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 20:44:40 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 10_YsgcVM1nTvPrJoBLtP9sRBXY4o8ONoxoqiRrCKRg2w86PXtlxjZfe47zvlcC6.lf4HYzRooPyldVPpJaRINZjQSqsLNWvilJAjNbSwuFEDAoRgvu_wJFXnPUsI4en3A4spe4yPvLOJnjEgK5OP3BydYt3VDwykdQsgUdb3EuKWb2hZRcOd1eeMK0pJv0YELf_gC77uKs5URA- Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: Logging General <paul24@example.com> From: Curt Arnold <paul24@example.com> Subject: Inactive PMC members Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:44:37 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org The current Logging Service bylaws (http://logging.apache.org/site/ bylaws.html) provides for a status of "emeritus" PMC member if a member has not contributed to the project in 6 months. The ASF bylaws (http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html) don't address "emeritus" PMC members. The PMC is charged with "active management of one or more projects" and it is hard to reconcile an inactive member of an committee charged with "active management". The ASF bylaws establish that the PMC is a creation of the board and the board has control over the PMC membership. Any role the PMC on its own membership is strictly advisory, the board can add or remove members without consultation with the PMC (though I'm sure it would do so only under extreme conditions). All that was to preface a review of the PMC membership and their recent contributions to the project. The following PMC members appear to have exceeded at 6 month without a post in the mailing lists: Michael Catanzarati: Last posting on log4cxx-dev on 2004-11-04 Christophe de Vienne: Last posting on log4cxx-dev on 2005-05-16 Marco Vassura: Last posting on log4php-dev on 2006-01-25 Mark Womack: Last posting on log4j-dev on 2006-02-07 Ceki Gulcu still occasionally posts on the mailing lists but has not contributed code since starting SLF4J.org and the logback project. I'm going to send each an email stating their apparent inactivity and asking them to make a statement on this mailing list regarding their status. Obviously, the project would benefit from their leadership. However, if they do not anticipate participating in the management of the project, then deep thanks for their contribution and an exit from the PMC would be in order. From generalpaul24@example.com Thu Feb 08 20:47:18 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 56913 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 20:47:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 20:47:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 73886 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 20:47:16 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 73852 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 20:47:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 73838 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2007 20:47:16 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:47:16 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail.qos.ch) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:47:05 -0800 Received: from kal.qos.ch (kal [83.161.120.155]) by mail.qos.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id B019F16A41B for <paul24@example.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:46:42 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> X-Sender: paul24@example.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 83.161.120.155 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:43:12 +0100 To: Logging General <paul24@example.com> From: Ceki =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FClc=FC?= <paul24@example.com> Subject: Re: Changing or repealing the Logging Services bylaws In-Reply-To: <paul24@example.com> References: <paul24@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org At 07:27 PM 2/8/2007, Curt Arnold wrote: >The current Logging Services bylaws effectively make the project an >umbrella covering several self-governing subprojects (log4j, >log4cxx, ...). The current bylaws mandate a two-stage vote for many >actions, an advisory vote at the subproject level followed by a >binding vote at the PMC level. For the log4j subproject, the two >stage vote is a time-consuming annoyance as the PMC and log4j >committers are very close to being the same set of people. For >log4cxx and log4net, reaching a quorum for the advisory vote can be >at least an obstacle. If I understand correctly, the idea is to circumvent the quorum requirement, i.e. collecting three +1 votes, so that the Logging TLP can vote instead of the people who are actually familiar with the work? > For chainsaw, it has resulted in a weird >hybrid where chainsaw has its own project in the SVN and releases, >but is part of the log4j project for quorum issues (and potentially >other issues). That was by volition of Scott and Paul. At the time, I invited them to form a separate project and they declined. You should perhaps ask Scott and Paul whether they would like to become a separate sub-project. >In addition, there are some definitions in the bylaws >(IIRC some of the voting definitions) that conflict with other >definitions in more authoritative Apache documents. There ASF is based on delegation. Therefore, as long as the LS bylaws are in agreement with rules of the ASF, they are authoritative as far as the LS TLP is concerned. >There have been previous discussions on bylaw changes to address >these issues, for example on paul24@example.com on 2005-07-01 >(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=3Dapache-logging-=20 >general&m=3D112024592311861&w=3D2) which referenced earlier discussion on >the private pmc list, but there was no action taken. > >The Board Resolution forming the LS PMC mandated the initial PMC >create a set of bylaws for the project (http://logging.apache.org/=20 >site/mission-statement.html). The term "guidelines" appears to be >currently preferred for project level statements to avoid the legal >implications of bylaws. For example, the ASF Bylaws (http://=20 >www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html) are a legal document that >governs the corporation and has to conform to corporate governance >laws in the State of Delaware. The LS bylaws (see http://logging.apache.org/site/bylaws.html ) mentions the word "guideline" once. >Section 6.3 of the ASF Bylaws (http://www.apache.org/foundation/=20 >bylaws.html) places responsibility to establish rules and procedures >on the PMC chair. The foundation bylaws mandates the project chairman to establish project bylaws. However, once the bylaws are established, they should not and cannot be changed at the whim of one person. We already have bylaws. They can be changed as long as there is a 2/3 majority of the active PMC members. The 2/3 rule is there precisely to prevent the chairman from making arbitrary changes. Are you suggesting that the chairman has the power to change the LS project bylawys without approval of the PMC? >There was an discussion on paul24@example.com on 2005-09-12 >that discussed the confusing state of ASF project bylaws (http://=20 >thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/6144/focus=3D6147). > >I thought that I recently saw a thread on >paul24@example.com that argued against projects having >bylaws (or guidelines) of their own as the ASF bylaws and other >documents were sufficient, but unfortunately I have not been able to >find that thread. As an open group, people are welcome to argue for or against any topic. The existence of a con argument does not mean it should be adopted here. >I would like to take steps that result in: > >The LS project to be a single project with any number of products. > >The PMC being the only decision making body. > >Either no project guideline document or one that heavily defers to, >not duplicate or conflict with, http://www.apache.org documents. > >A set of evolving process documents that describe best practices on >the project. > >I would appreciate comments and will try to work on a draft. A board >report is due for the Feb 21st meeting. It would be great to get >this and several other issues resolved in the next week or so in >order to clear out some long pending issues. The idea behind the current structure is to delegate responsibility to the people actually doing the work. I still think that delegation is one of the core tenets of the ASF. Thus, after a given LS sub-project votes, and then makes a recommendation to the PMC, the PMC is very likely to endorse the recommendation. As far as I know, the LS PMC has always endorsed recommendations made by sub-projects. Instead of undoing the existing bylaws, I would suggest to expedite the PMC voting process. Moreover, nothing prevents a sub-project from granting committer access to an existing PMC member (hence mitigating the difficulty of reaching quorum.) --=20 Ceki G=FClc=FC Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for= Java. http://logback.qos.ch From generalpaul24@example.com Thu Feb 08 21:18:49 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 69182 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 21:18:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 21:18:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 41519 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 21:18:55 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 41489 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 21:18:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 41478 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2007 21:18:55 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:18:55 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail.qos.ch) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:18:45 -0800 Received: from kal.qos.ch (kal [83.161.120.155]) by mail.qos.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149A916A415 for <paul24@example.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:18:19 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> X-Sender: paul24@example.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 83.161.120.155 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:18:21 +0100 To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> From: Ceki =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FClc=FC?= <paul24@example.com> Subject: Re: Inactive PMC members In-Reply-To: <paul24@example.com> References: <paul24@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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? 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.) At 09:44 PM 2/8/2007, Curt Arnold wrote: >The current Logging Service bylaws (http://logging.apache.org/site/=20 >bylaws.html) provides for a status of "emeritus" PMC member if a >member has not contributed to the project in 6 months. The ASF >bylaws (http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html) don't address >"emeritus" PMC members. The PMC is charged with "active management >of one or more projects" and it is hard to reconcile an inactive >member of an committee charged with "active management". The ASF >bylaws establish that the PMC is a creation of the board and the >board has control over the PMC membership. Any role the PMC on its >own membership is strictly advisory, the board can add or remove >members without consultation with the PMC (though I'm sure it would >do so only under extreme conditions). > >All that was to preface a review of the PMC membership and their >recent contributions to the project. The following PMC members >appear to have exceeded at 6 month without a post in the mailing lists: > >Michael Catanzarati: Last posting on log4cxx-dev on 2004-11-04 >Christophe de Vienne: Last posting on log4cxx-dev on 2005-05-16 >Marco Vassura: Last posting on log4php-dev on 2006-01-25 >Mark Womack: Last posting on log4j-dev on 2006-02-07 > >Ceki Gulcu still occasionally posts on the mailing lists but has not >contributed code since starting SLF4J.org and the logback project. > >I'm going to send each an email stating their apparent inactivity and >asking them to make a statement on this mailing list regarding their >status. Obviously, the project would benefit from their leadership. >However, if they do not anticipate participating in the management of >the project, then deep thanks for their contribution and an exit from >the PMC would be in order. --=20 Ceki G=FClc=FC Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for= Java. http://logback.qos.ch From generalpaul24@example.com Thu Feb 08 22:07:25 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 81435 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 22:07:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 22:07:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 30252 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 22:07:30 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 30087 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 22:07:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 30076 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2007 22:07:30 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:07:30 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:07:19 -0800 Received: (qmail 22938 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 22:06:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (paul24@example.com@83.161.120.155 with plain) by smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 22:06:56 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: _nSCAqwVM1mF8p8If6j_m_Vn83S0jGDe9ivpWYdkqNDOISeDbPth4KsUO3qHkuLk1ppQ.LyJ2SSPQfe.VoW868uqfXfwxz2Xm28xwr22GDQu4XhE5y8K3TAvtp6yyYSFdOt_vfYnRrOf_aGXbDuSLkclEnr9xbOR.XIG0k0aPzywjb9e5sIk1FC8ash. Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <paul24@example.com> References: <paul24@example.com> <paul24@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Curt Arnold <paul24@example.com> Subject: Re: Changing or repealing the Logging Services bylaws Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:06:55 -0600 To: Logging General <paul24@example.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Feb 8, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Ceki G=FClc=FC wrote: > > If I understand correctly, the idea is to circumvent the quorum > requirement, i.e. collecting three +1 votes, so that the Logging TLP > can vote instead of the people who are actually familiar with the > work? =46rom http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > Binding Votes: > > Who is permitted to vote is, to some extent, a community-specific =20 > thing. However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have =20 > binding votes, and all others are either discouraged from voting =20 > (to keep the noise down) or else have their votes considered of an =20 > indicative or advisory nature only. > > That's the general rule. In actual fact, things tend to be a little =20= > looser, and procedural votes from developers and committers are =20 > sometimes considered binding if the voter has acquired enough merit =20= > and respect in the community. Only votes by PMC members are =20 > considered binding on code-modification issues, however. =46rom http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#structure > > The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight. The =20= > main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure =20 > that all legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, =20 > and that each and every release is the product of the community as =20 > a whole. That is key to our litigation protection mechanisms. =46rom http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html > Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the =20 > group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside =20= > the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public =20 > is being instructed to download a package, then that package has =20 > been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving =20= > any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, =20 > described below. Each of those makes the PMC responsible for releases. The PMC must =20 vote on a release and while it definitely should take in to =20 consideration any vote or opinion by non-PMC committers or community =20 members, it can't delegate responsibility for ensuring that the =20 release follows ASF requirements and licensing guidelines. If a PMC =20 member is not familiar with the work and have not checked it for =20 sanity and legal issues, they should not vote on a release. =20 Requiring a two-stage vote (once at the subproject level and once at =20 the PMC level), either adds an almost identical vote (in log4j's case =20= where the PMC and log4j committers are very close to the same set of =20 people) or delays general PMC review of a release until 72 hours =20 after the build has been proposed on a subproject where only a few =20 PMC members are active. Either situation can be addressed by either =20 calling the PMC and project votes simultaneously or by PMC members =20 joining a subproject vote, however those are ugly, but effective, =20 hacks. The two-stage vote in my opinion adds complexity without a =20 corresponding benefit. > >> For chainsaw, it has resulted in a weird >> hybrid where chainsaw has its own project in the SVN and releases, >> but is part of the log4j project for quorum issues (and potentially >> other issues). > > That was by volition of Scott and Paul. At the time, I invited > them to form a separate project and they declined. You should perhaps > ask Scott and Paul whether they would like to become a separate > sub-project. Hopefully they are subscribed to this list and will participate in =20 the thread. > >> In addition, there are some definitions in the bylaws >> (IIRC some of the voting definitions) that conflict with other >> definitions in more authoritative Apache documents. > > There ASF is based on delegation. Therefore, as long as the LS bylaws > are in agreement with rules of the ASF, they are authoritative as far > as the LS TLP is concerned. The Foundation glossary defines "Lazy Approval" and "Lazy Consensus" =20 as synonyms while the LS Bylaws has them as distinct terms with "Lazy =20= Consensus" with a similar definition as "Consensus Approval". http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus If the bylaws are modified, it would be good to change occurrences of =20= "Lazy Consensus" to "Consensus Approval" to be consistent with other =20 ASF projects. > >> There have been previous discussions on bylaw changes to address >> these issues, for example on paul24@example.com on 2005-07-01 >> (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=3Dapache-logging- =20 >> general&m=3D112024592311861&w=3D2) which referenced earlier = discussion on >> the private pmc list, but there was no action taken. >> >> The Board Resolution forming the LS PMC mandated the initial PMC >> create a set of bylaws for the project (http://logging.apache.org/ =20= >> site/mission-statement.html). The term "guidelines" appears to be >> currently preferred for project level statements to avoid the legal >> implications of bylaws. For example, the ASF Bylaws (http:// =20 >> www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html) are a legal document that >> governs the corporation and has to conform to corporate governance >> laws in the State of Delaware. > > The LS bylaws (see http://logging.apache.org/site/bylaws.html ) > mentions the word "guideline" once. The point was that the term "bylaws" has specific legal connotations =20 and recent board discussions had preferred using the term =20 "guidelines" for PMC level documents and reserving the "bylaws" term =20 for the ASF bylaws which is a legal document. > >> Section 6.3 of the ASF Bylaws (http://www.apache.org/foundation/ =20 >> bylaws.html) places responsibility to establish rules and procedures >> on the PMC chair. > > The foundation bylaws mandates the project chairman to establish > project bylaws. However, once the bylaws are established, they should > not and cannot be changed at the whim of one person. We already have > bylaws. They can be changed as long as there is a 2/3 majority of the > active PMC members. The 2/3 rule is there precisely to prevent the > chairman from making arbitrary changes. > > Are you suggesting that the chairman has the power to change the LS > project bylawys without approval of the PMC? > This reference was provided for background material on project =20 governance. It was not a threat of unilateral action. > >> There was an discussion on paul24@example.com on 2005-09-12 >> that discussed the confusing state of ASF project bylaws (http:// =20 >> thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/6144/=20 >> focus=3D6147). >> >> I thought that I recently saw a thread on >> paul24@example.com that argued against projects having >> bylaws (or guidelines) of their own as the ASF bylaws and other >> documents were sufficient, but unfortunately I have not been able to >> find that thread. > > As an open group, people are welcome to argue for or against any > topic. The existence of a con argument does not mean it should be > adopted here. I was trying to enumerate all the pertinent discussions that could =20 inform our discussion. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a =20 reference, but thought a description of the thread might be enough =20 for someone else to fill in the details. > >> I would like to take steps that result in: >> >> The LS project to be a single project with any number of products. >> >> The PMC being the only decision making body. >> >> Either no project guideline document or one that heavily defers to, >> not duplicate or conflict with, http://www.apache.org documents. >> >> A set of evolving process documents that describe best practices on >> the project. >> >> I would appreciate comments and will try to work on a draft. A board >> report is due for the Feb 21st meeting. It would be great to get >> this and several other issues resolved in the next week or so in >> order to clear out some long pending issues. > > The idea behind the current structure is to delegate responsibility to > the people actually doing the work. I still think that delegation is > one of the core tenets of the ASF. Thus, after a given LS sub-project > votes, and then makes a recommendation to the PMC, the PMC is very > likely to endorse the recommendation. As far as I know, the LS PMC has > always endorsed recommendations made by sub-projects. > > Instead of undoing the existing bylaws, I would suggest to expedite > the PMC voting process. Moreover, nothing prevents a sub-project from > granting committer access to an existing PMC member (hence mitigating > the difficulty of reaching quorum.) Thanks for your comments. From generalpaul24@example.com Thu Feb 08 23:09:11 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 96914 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 23:09:09 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 23:09:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 22734 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 23:09:15 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 22699 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2007 23:09:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 22688 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2007 23:09:15 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:09:15 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp113.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:09:05 -0800 Received: (qmail 34638 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2007 23:08:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (paul24@example.com@83.161.120.155 with plain) by smtp113.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2007 23:08:44 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: LWKLslQVM1mLHV2._ai2klp8Y_Cm5v0UChK0ApPg4yKwLifJWyFVAyL4dKrq1.CvXS3MRYT3BeWe00YWx8j14_RyyHaa8cWdoPp5.3vtQYJGLCy7svjxzvJpFXgg33ir9Z1jT.dOpIk9FVOyFi2ZmKzXqFN6v2jjW_j2hOd_nagMOs6AMYFgaMuAnuUX Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <paul24@example.com> References: <paul24@example.com> <paul24@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Curt Arnold <paul24@example.com> Subject: Re: Inactive PMC members Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:08:30 -0600 To: Logging General <paul24@example.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Ceki G=FClc=FC 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. =20 Graduating log4net from the incubator may take 2/3 majority if you =20 consider it "adoption of a new codebase". Since there are currently =20 12 PMC members, the missing 4 would be sufficient to block all but =20 unanimous decisions from the other PMC members when a vote requires =20 2/3 majority. As a PMC member, they should be monitoring this =20 mailing list and I have sent them an individual email to request that =20= they update this mailing list on their status and inform them that =20 there may be upcoming votes that require their participation. I =20 would not want to declare them emeritus for procedural reasons =20 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 =20 paul24@example.com on 2006-10-25 and following. I can't =20 quote your message from the private list, but my response was: > > I haven't found the email that described to migration away from =20 > pmc@ mailing lists to private@ mailing lists, but I believe the =20 > general idea was private@ should only be used when the discussion =20 > required confidentiality. Voting on a new committer or PMC member =20 > might be a little sensitive, but you'd want to have a public record =20= > of the vote and so it should be on one of the publicly archived =20 > mailing lists. Also, if a person does not have a history of =20 > submitting patches that would allow us to judge his code-fu, but =20 > you believe that he can contribute to project governance, then =20 > possibly voting on him as a PMC member makes more sense (which =20 > would occur on the general@logging mailing list). > > Let's move this discussion to paul24@example.com if you =20 > wish to talk about process or call a vote on PMC membership or =20 > paul24@example.com if you wish to call a vote for log4j =20 > commit rights. If there are reasons that you believe this should =20 > remain confidential, discussion can remain here or better, be held =20 > on the general mailing lists but with specific names avoided. http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#mailing-list-naming-policy use of =20 the private mailing list and specifically mention that "nominees for =20 project, project committee or Foundation membership" can be held on =20 paul24@example.com. I did not have that link at the time and =20= was recalling on just a general impression that private@ should =20 rarely be used. The LS bylaws state that a new committer is voted on my the active =20 members of the relevant sub-project and as private@ is only available =20= to PMC members it can't be a forum for a subproject vote without =20 excluding non-PMC committers. It does appear that you could nominate =20= an individual as a PMC member on private@ and hold all the =20 conversation about the individual on the private list. From generalpaul24@example.com Fri Feb 09 00:19:01 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 21162 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2007 00:19:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 00:19:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 50559 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 00:19:07 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 50520 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 00:19:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 50509 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2007 00:19:06 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:19:06 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp114.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:18:56 -0800 Received: (qmail 18877 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2007 00:18:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (paul24@example.com@83.161.120.155 with plain) by smtp114.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 00:18:35 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: lFuJ3AgVM1kSGLJwdFHTDcRzz_hfVYiFZ5nhGCaTvcBn_hgpC4FdQ5ayyrwyebvs0cGvk6osJT4aBPAfjsueeCViVxHCieTe7X_8EO6TLQitS5xVsp7Pk0GCcy9YhYPjNJ_iHY2IAUj4bE0y9.OU9NQu8xJo7ZgO3rtcDyXyauandxFg_vTaGRs49ix4 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: Logging General <paul24@example.com> From: Curt Arnold <paul24@example.com> Subject: New committer process Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:18:34 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org The incubator podling PMC document (http://incubator.apache.org/ guides/ppmc.html)has a decent process for voting in a new committer with significant discussion from ASF notables (at least people whose name I've seen before) at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- general&m=112033710817042&w=2. The basic premise is that discussing and voting on granting commit privileges is best done on the PMC's private list followed by a private inquiry to the individual under consideration before a public announcement. The podling PMC document talks about having a public pro-forma vote after the private trial, but I agree with the concern with having pretend votes in public after the real decision has been made in private. From generalpaul24@example.com Fri Feb 09 02:23:38 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 61790 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2007 02:23:37 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 02:23:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 88861 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 02:23:43 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 88814 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 02:23:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 88803 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 02:23:43 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 88800 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2007 02:23:43 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:23:43 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.4 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,NO_REAL_NAME X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO eris.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:23:35 -0800 Received: by eris.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8CB341A981A; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:23:15 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: svn commit: r505140 - /logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:23:15 -0000 To: paul24@example.com From: paul24@example.com X-Mailer: svnmailer-1.1.0 Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Author: carnold Date: Thu Feb 8 18:23:14 2007 New Revision: 505140 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=505140 Log: Bug 41575: projects.apache.org metadata for Logging Services PMC Added: logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf Added: logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf?view=auto&rev=505140 ============================================================================== --- logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf (added) +++ logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf Thu Feb 8 18:23:14 2007 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +<?xml version="1.0"?> <!-- ======================================================================= Copyright (c) 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. ======================================================================= --> <rdf:RDF xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:asfext="http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"> <asfext:PMC rdf:about="logging"> <asfext:name>Apache Logging Services</asfext:name> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://logging.apache.org"/> <asfext:chair> <foaf:Person> <foaf:name>Curt Arnold</foaf:name> </foaf:Person> </asfext:chair> <asfext:charter>The mission of the Apache Logging Services project is to create and maintain of software for managing the logging of application behavior, and for related software componen ts.</asfext:charter> </asfext:PMC> </rdf:RDF> \ No newline at end of file From generalpaul24@example.com Fri Feb 09 02:29:17 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 64776 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2007 02:29:15 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 02:29:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 98206 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 02:29:22 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 98165 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 02:29:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 98154 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 02:29:22 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 98151 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2007 02:29:22 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:29:22 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.4 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,NO_REAL_NAME X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO eris.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:29:14 -0800 Received: by eris.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 238E21A981A; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:28:54 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: svn commit: r505141 - /logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:28:54 -0000 To: paul24@example.com From: paul24@example.com X-Mailer: svnmailer-1.1.0 Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Author: carnold Date: Thu Feb 8 18:28:53 2007 New Revision: 505141 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=505141 Log: Bug 41575: projects.apache.org metadata for Logging Services PMC Modified: logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf Modified: logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf?view=diff&rev=505141&r1=505140&r2=505141 ============================================================================== --- logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf (original) +++ logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf Thu Feb 8 18:28:53 2007 @@ -1 +1 @@ -<?xml version="1.0"?> <!-- ======================================================================= Copyright (c) 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. ======================================================================= --> <rdf:RDF xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:asfext="http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"> <asfext:PMC rdf:about="logging"> <asfext:name>Apache Logging Services</asfext:name> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://logging.apache.org"/> <asfext:chair> <foaf:Person> <foaf:name>Curt Arnold</foaf:name> </foaf:Person> </asfext:chair> <asfext:charter>The mission of the Apache Logging Services project is to create and maintain of software for managing the logging of application behavior, and for related software componen ts.</asfext:charter> </asfext:PMC> </rdf:RDF> \ No newline at end of file +<?xml version="1.0"?> <!-- Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. --> <rdf:RDF xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:asfext="http://projects.apache.org/ns /asfext#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"> <asfext:PMC rdf:about="logging"> <asfext:name>Apache Logging Services</asfext:name> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://logging.apache.org"/> <asfext:chair> <foaf:Person> <foaf:name>Curt Arnold</foaf:name> </foaf:Person> </asfext:chair> <asfext:charter>The mission of the Apache Logging Services project is to create and maintain of software for managing the logging of application behavior, and for related software components.</asfext:charter> </asfext:PMC> </rdf:RDF> \ No newline at end of file From generalpaul24@example.com Fri Feb 09 02:51:33 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 73714 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2007 02:51:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 02:51:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 28967 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 02:51:39 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 28798 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 02:51:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 28787 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 02:51:39 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 28784 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2007 02:51:39 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:51:39 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.4 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,NO_REAL_NAME X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO eris.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:51:31 -0800 Received: by eris.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 780A71A981A; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:51:11 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: svn commit: r505149 - /logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:51:11 -0000 To: paul24@example.com From: paul24@example.com X-Mailer: svnmailer-1.1.0 Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Author: carnold Date: Thu Feb 8 18:51:10 2007 New Revision: 505149 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=505149 Log: Bug 41575: projects.apache.org metadata for Logging Services PMC Removed: logging/site/trunk/doap_logging.rdf From generalpaul24@example.com Fri Feb 09 17:47:10 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 36831 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2007 17:47:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 17:47:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 64052 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 17:47:14 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 63957 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 17:47:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 63904 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2007 17:47:13 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:47:13 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:47:02 -0800 Received: (qmail 61713 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2007 17:46:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (paul24@example.com@83.161.120.155 with plain) by smtp106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 17:46:41 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: GF.MwOwVM1nCxMDmFvMZrtAunRCuA5v6F2i9PfHZEbnniBHe547t3qD9k5X3Enw4PePUoJM5.rgE_OVpbsatgRHOiPsnHG_h9IaqJM3lBhq66FUiK2tGQDqe2V1UPDAyan_tQxaCXMk820vVQAANxDXlfBfg81pZOgRLA.e9qAEqAp1EBd6mVAvAjJY- Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <paul24@example.com> References: <paul24@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Curt Arnold <paul24@example.com> Subject: Re: Changing or repealing the Logging Services bylaws Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:46:38 -0600 To: Logging General <paul24@example.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Feb 8, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Curt Arnold wrote: > > I thought that I recently saw a thread on > paul24@example.com that argued against projects having > bylaws (or guidelines) of their own as the ASF bylaws and other > documents were sufficient, but unfortunately I have not been able > to find that thread. > Thilo Goetz provided this link to the vaguely remembered discussion on general@incubator: http://www.mail-archive.com/ paul24@example.com/msg11758.html From generalpaul24@example.com Fri Feb 09 18:19:14 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 44913 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2007 18:19:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 18:19:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 29130 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 18:19:19 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 29089 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2007 18:19:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 29078 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2007 18:19:19 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:19:19 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:19:09 -0800 Received: (qmail 47994 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2007 18:18:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (paul24@example.com@83.161.120.155 with plain) by smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 18:18:48 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: QviakfQVM1mZuYAvLd5sSlTMW3efA10DTgwDKchE7D7l.ITZwSEMwy6KjiVtNCmsqgvTKxMSqZ7rs7uZaakfbV1ita6se0hvpw0JwzfwzALeLfFAWyX.TmSu3ZzwYOgU95SsHMr8LhGQXCz3lOR3nMjsEZePrfsGoioLTqKYFLHfaG_ScPyW_xnkMyH8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> Cc: paul24@example.com, paul24@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Curt Arnold <paul24@example.com> Subject: [VOTE] Terminate log4php incubation Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:18:44 -0600 To: Logging General <paul24@example.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org log4php has had no code modification in over a year and only a few messages on the log4php-dev and log4php-user mailing lists. From all appearances the project is dormant and unlikely to complete the incubation process. There was a thread on general@incubator on 2006-12-21 (http://paul24@example.com/ msg12099.html) that discussed the lack of status reports and progress for log4php and discussed potential resolutions. I propose that the Logging Services PMC request that Incubator PMC terminate the incubation of log4php with the understanding that the current log4php source repository would continue to be available (perhaps at a different location in the ASF SVN at the Incubator PMC discretion) for interested users or later attempts to restart the incubation process. I'm starting the vote with a +1. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. At the end of the voting period a voting summary will be prepared and posted both on general@logging and paul24@example.com. From generalpaul24@example.com Sat Feb 10 05:34:26 2007 Return-Path: <generalpaul24@example.com> Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 23084 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2007 05:34:25 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Feb 2007 05:34:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 81543 invoked by uid 500); 10 Feb 2007 05:34:31 -0000 Delivered-To: paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 81508 invoked by uid 500); 10 Feb 2007 05:34:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact paul24@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:paul24@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:paul24@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:paul24@example.com> Reply-To: "Logging General" <paul24@example.com> List-Id: <general.logging.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list paul24@example.com Received: (qmail 81497 invoked by uid 99); 10 Feb 2007 05:34:31 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:34:31 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:34:20 -0800 Received: (qmail 17720 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2007 05:33:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (paul24@example.com@83.161.120.155 with plain) by smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2007 05:33:59 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: u4MnNQMVM1nbbVJcInE2mPd_ygDVVvM2ZHr1DFpvvaXmUfihNtw5dZkb6R3o1k5Da.ol6icAYF7_xg_AqW3kWawWryH.QF9y5Eq8ePOsgEh.mS_JJUOzBwDnVRpEW9wfme8o.sdC0quJ9K2GXCNOsXd4G5aP8aA1PdWjTLEd3C0vRbk2SRsMi7Z7Oxzr2f3rmmAGqmgGpZDFxa4- Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <paul24@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: Logging General <paul24@example.com>
{'source': 'Apache Software Foundation Public Mail Archives'}