Some IMOs below.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 6:40 AM Piotr P. Karwasz
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A user report regarding a broken link on `projects.apache.org`[1]
> brought my attention to the amount of out-of-date metadata we publish:
>
> * Our DOAP file has not been updated in ages. It contained out of date
> links. We should probably regenerate it at each release. On
> `projects.apache.org` this would give a result like Maven's[2].
>
> * Our `` and `` sections in POM files are also
> out of date. It contains people that are not active, does **not**
> contain people that are active and some affiliations might not be up to
> date.
>
>
> To better understand what the `` option should contain, I
> looked at the documentation[3] and asked on Slack[4]. The documentation
> says:
>
> > Developers are presumably members of the project's core development.
> Note that, although an organization may have many developers
> (programmers) as members, it is not good form to list them all as
> developers, but only those who are immediately responsible for the code.
> A good rule of thumb is, if the person should not be contacted about the
> project, they do not need to be listed here.
>
> And of course the Maven team contradicts itself, by listing all PMC
> Members, Committers and even Emeritus members in their POM file[5].
>
>
> We have probably two options here:
>
> 1. My favorite is to break the semantics of `` an add two
> teams in `logging-parent`: an "Apache Logging Services Security Team"
> with address `secur...@logging.apache.org` and an "Apache Logging
> Services PMC" with this mailing list as address.
>
> 2. List team members only in `logging-parent` and keep the list
> up-to-date. If we go for this option:
>
> * We should remove inactive members from the POM file.
In the spirit of KISS...
1. If someone has had a commit in the history of the project, they
should be listed as a contributor. This includes PR contributions.
2. Active PMC members should be listed as developers.
3. (Redundant with 1) Committers not on the PMC should be listed as
contributors.
I would also be OK to simplify it more as "developers" = PMC and
"contributors" = committers. Everyone else gets credited in
changes.xml or whatever custom system we now use.
>
> * If we add some people there, we should at least add the whole
> Project Management Committee. These are the people currently
> "immediately responsible for the code" and even Log4cxx and Log4net
> developers assume responsibility and vote on Log4j releases. Adding our
> few active committers does not hurt either.
>
> * The list should be somehow ordered, with the people that should
> be contacted first at the top. I think the order should be PMC Chair,
> PMC Member, Committer.
This is crazy busy work, if converting the XML to HTML wants to do this, fine.
>
> * We should not list affiliations, unless our employer explicitly
> pays us to work on Log4j and would like to be listed.
What does this mean? If you mean the "organization" element, I don't
think we should be policing what people put in there, unless it's an
obvious problem like someone putting a link to an ad for a "url"
element.
HTH,
Gary
>
> I started a draft PR for option 2[6].
>
> What do you think?
>
> Piotr
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/3536
>
> [2] https://projects.apache.org/project.html?maven
>
> [3] https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Developers
>
> [4] https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/C7Q9JB404/p1742287422781009
>
> [5] https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.maven/maven-core/3.9.9
>
> [6] https://github.com/apache/logging-parent/pull/351
>
