Re: [VOTE]: motion to transform Xerces into a top-level project as a member of the "federation" of XML projects

Neil Graham wrote:
> I've now rolled some of the points that we seem to have consensus on into
> the original charter I suggested back at the beginning of April.  I've
> posted it on the Wiki page [*] where Berin had kindly placed his reworking
> of that document.

Looks good. I am pleased to see the text explicitly provide
a place for sub-projects that are not strictly parser impls.

However, I would like to see 4.3.b changed from "componentry"
to something that reflects related function. For example,
an "HTML" sub-project would likely have several "components".
In other words, I'd rather see one HTML sub-project instead
of two (e.g. "HTML DOM" and "HTML parser").

Also, would these "components" be separated by programming
langauge as well? For example would an HTML parser in Java be
a different sub-project than an HTML parser in C/C++?

Other than that, I like it. There are a few minor wording
issues but the ideas and content are sound.

> If we can get agreement on that, then I for one would be cool for actually
> voting on the resolution Berin drafted for us (which I've included below,
> with a few modifications, chief among them an attempt at specifying the
> composition of the PMC based on who it seems to me are the active
> committers these days).  I haven't tried to fill in the field for PMC Chair
> though.  :)

Speaking of which, what ever happened to that tool someone
was writing to tabulate who was posting to the mailing lists/
commiting code and then mailing status reports to the mailing
list each month? That would certainly help us stay on top of
who is active vs. inactive.

-- 
Andy Clark * [email protected]