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

[Mihael Hategan]

On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 13:33 -0500, Ian Foster wrote:
> Indeed, if the majority of committers are from elsewhere (which would
> be a wonderful success),

Not necessarily. The number of committers and the quality of the
committs are two separate issues.

>  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.

I'm not saying you did. Nor that you didn't. The point was that there is
a fundamental difference between not having a liberty and not exercising
a liberty that you have.

> 
> 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
> > >     
> > 
> >