<!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">
Indeed, if the majority of committers are from elsewhere (which would
be a wonderful success), then the direction of the project would tend
to be determined by their desires. If those desires ended up being
antithetical to ours, we might end up forking the code. But that is all
hypothetical (and unlikely).<br>
<br>
I don't think that I (or Mike) have been restricting free will. My only
(periodic) input is that I would like to see more attention given to
documenting application requirements and status.<br>
<br>
Ian.<br>
<br>
Mihael Hategan wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1212689468.29852.12.camel@localhost" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 12:43 -0500, Ian Foster wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I want to point out (probably obvious, but worth mentioning) that the
whole dev.globus "democratic" process is meant to enable negotiation
of different perspectives and needs from different contributing
groups.
Clearly in the case of U.Chicago people, the ultimate decision on what
is done is not determined democratically--it is determined via a
consensus-based process, to a large extent, but ultimately decided by
Mike based on project funding obligations.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
As long as that applies. In the purely hypothetical scenario that a
majority of the committers stop working at UC, Mike will have no
authority. Nor will you.
It may also be contradictory to the process if committers had no free
will, but were to be vetoable by Mike. In that case, they should not be
committers in the first place.
So we either want dev.globus.org or we don't. But it doesn't seem like
we can do very much about wanting only parts of dev.globus.org and not
others.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ian.
Ben Clifford wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Michael Wilde wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If "chair" is someone who maintains the infrastructure it should be a
developer.
If its someone that makes management decisions and speaks for the project, it
should be me.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">It seems to me to be neither of those. Specifically there are no
requirements that the chair maintain infrastructure and an explicit
prohibition on the chair making enhanced-authority decisions (wrt any
other committer).
However, Jen's correspondence seems to suggest that IMP regards the chair
as having some other rights and obligations. I don't believe these are
publicly documented though.
---
Each Globus project is required to name a project Chair via some
process defined by the project's Committers. A project Chair has no
enhanced authority, but has certain responsibilities relative to the
function of the Globus Alliance. Specifically:
* The Chair should generate, on or before March 31st, June 30th, September
30th, and December 31st of each year, reports concerning the activities of
the project during the past quarter, its current status, and future plans.
*The Chair is responsible for forwarding to the Globus infrastructure
group requests to add or delete Committers for the project.
---
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Swift-devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Swift-devel@ci.uchicago.edu">Swift-devel@ci.uchicago.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel">http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>