[Swift-devel] [Fwd: Re: [incubator-committers] Re: swift project in hibernation]

[Ian Foster]

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).

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.

Ian.

Mihael Hategan wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 12:43 -0500, Ian Foster wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> 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.
>
>   
>> Ian.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ben Clifford wrote: 
>>     
>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Michael Wilde wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> 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.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> 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.
>>> ---
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Swift-devel mailing list
>> Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
>> http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
>>     
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/swift-devel/attachments/20080605/d2431860/attachment.html>