its cool that there are a few volunteers, you can get me off the list then 
Okay, its been 24 hours (and to avoid risk of looking like a 'stopped community effort' ) I am going to assume that nymon and myself are it (ashtonv seems like he would be a great alternate, if anyone is opposed please speak up). So, I guess I will wait another 24 hours and if no one else volunteers I will send off the names to mojomonk…
All hail the new JME project managers - basixs and nymon
Long may they reign 
Just waiting on the rights now, sent off the email yesterday but there may be a delay due to the holidays…
I'm down with being a backup. Sorry that I didn't reply earlier. Let me know what I need to do (or what I need to keep an eye on) to be the best possible backup I can be! 
Hey all, sorry I have been AWOL (been very sick w/ pneumonia, actually had to go the hospital :().
Still waiting on the reply to the email, if I haven't received one by tomorrow I will try to contact Renanse to see if he has any information…
basixs said:
Hey all, sorry I have been AWOL (been very sick w/ pneumonia, actually had to go the hospital :().
Geeze, glad you made it back!
I have had it 4 times (this being the fourth) since high school swimming (whoever put the swim season in the winter did not live in a climate that is typically 10 degrees below the freezing point) and everytime I push myself to hard I get it again it seems. (and once you have it it is much easier to get it again, which can make for a pretty vicious cycle).
Fortunately, I am in fairly decent health (except that I smoke, go figure on the pneumonia eh ;)) and can bounce back pretty easily still…
Anyways, I am back to report I got a reply from mojomonk; and in the interest of a good community relations I feel obligated to tell you all that I may have (inadvertantly) misrepresented what exactly we were volunteering/voting for…
here is the entire email conversation that I have had with mojomonk:
On Dec 19, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Josh wrote:
> Hi mark,
>
> Couple of quick questions, we at jME are trying to 'get on with our lives' (hehe) but are faced w/ an issue about 1.0 jME forum topic. In that topic core-dump brings up a good point about not being able to change the available updates on google code. Also (and this is just for my personal knowledge) can just anyone 'walk in off the street' post a couple of comments and gain write to the SVN server?
>
> Thanx, josh (basixs)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Mark wrote:
Hi Josh,
Yes, anyone that requests write access is given it. While a somewhat "dangerous" policy, it's spurred a good amount of activity and community feel. jME was starting to stagnate and die with major contributors no longer committed to it and moving on (myself, Josh Slack, Rikard Herlitz). So far, it's worked out, and hopefully, is self governing. At some point something will happen that will require policing, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Regarding updates, we can add one or two project owners that the community deems "worthy" to handle project management tasks.
-Mark
On Jan 2, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Josh wrote:
> Hey Mark,
>
> Here is the forum thread where we discuss who should be responsible for the jME 'download' stuff: http://www.jmonkeyengine.com/jmeforum/index.php?topic=10052.0
>
> I guess its nymon and myself (basixs), and would it be too much to ask to put ashtonv as an 'alternate'? Basically give him rights also, but with the understanding that he should
> only exercise those rights if nymon and myself are unavailable...
>
> I hope you can figure out exactly what rights we need and where (although I am sure all will become clear in time), also here is a thread where we are discussing what to do about jME 1.0: http://www.jmonkeyengine.com/jmeforum/index.php?topic=10045.0
>
> (although I am sure you guys still pop in regularly to see how your 'first born' is doing ;))
>
> Josh (basixs)
>
> P.S. Feel free to contact me if you see something that you don't like about how jME is heading or if you have general comments; I (and I am sure a lot of others) really value your input and greater experience :)
>
> P.P.S After re-reading your email, I realize that I may have misunderstood; are the 'elected' people going to be the visible 'Project Owners'? I assumed (probably incorrectly) that these people will simply be giving access rights.
> If our names are the only names listed as the 'jME Project Owners' I am sure that may cause some issues with the other jME members and rightly so (furthermore I would be completely at fault and to blame). However, if our names are added to the existing list of owners than I think the issue can be resolved relatively easily (if this is the case then I guess we don't really need ashtonv as an alternate since we still have the 'old grizzlies' around :)) and I can just post "..it is a neccesary step to having access rights..".
On Jan 6, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Mark wrote:
Hey, sorry, have been busy with holidays and getting back into work.
Just so I am clear, you are requesting yourself and nymon to have project ownership rights?
Honestly, I have no problem with this, and it's easier to give you guys the power to do what you need to do without having to go through the pain of using google code's right's management.
-Mark
In my haste to re-post back here I misread mojomonk's second email and did not realize what exactly could be the implications of 'our' decision, and through that misunderstanding I feel I have mis-represented the vote entirely. Please believe me that this was a simple misunderstanding; I have not been able to stop thinking about it since I realized the problem, and came to understand that "..it is a neccesary step to having access rights.." is an absolutely despicable thing to do. So in the interest of an open community I am here being completely honest and open.
The way I see it we have four options:
- Do nothing - in order to move forward with the jME 2.0 'switch' we need these roles filled; so this is probably not a good option
- Remove my name from the roster and re-vote the second person - I do feel very responsible for the issue at hand, and will gladly 'resign' if the community so deems
- Continue on with the currently voted people - This is entirely up to the community...
- Find out the possibility of having the 'Project Manager' not be one of the GoogleCode Project Owners - this is what I thought was the original idea, but it may be difficult...
- Re-vote - Now that we have a better understanding, perhaps an entire re-vote is in order.
To the entire community, I offer my humble apologies; a hasty assumption on my part could have been the cause of a lot of harsh feelings, furthermore I almost made matters much worse by trying to 'control' the situation.
The only thing from stopping me from 'resigning' right now is that I know that my desire to help with jME is what truly drives my volunteering to help w/ the project management stuff. And while I won't lie and say it doesn't make my heart beat faster just thinking about it, I do not feel worthy to have my name be listed as a Project Owner (even if it is just a meaningless title, we all know who the 'real' jME owners were and we'll still feel the same for a while I'm sure).
Baxis stop talking about stepping down. You're clearly distraught about a miscommunication on how we would actually obtain the permissions needed for control of management tasks, and I don't think you should be.
In my opinion, owning jME is not really what I signed up for and from reading the correspondence I don't think that is what is happening. It seems to me that being 'Project Owner' is a social issue that the community is just going to have to figure out. But if Mark and the other owners wish to move on and hand jME to the community, then in a purely logistical sense, someone or some group needs to 'own' the project.
I don't mind who is listed on google as project owner, because to me it is really just a means to accomplish what we need to get done. I certainly would not claim to own the project, and I hope nobody else would feel that I do.
I don't think there needs to be a problem, and I have no doubt of anyone's sincerity on here in wanting the best for JME.
Since only 'project owners' can add jars to the download page (at least i tought so), there needs to be some people added to the projects owner list.
But if Marc can just give access rights to people to add jars, then that would be easier of course
"Project Owner" in the context of Google Code means that they have administrative rights. They are able to manage users, add files, change description, etc. By adding Nymon and Basixs as Project Owners it's giving them administrative rights to be administrators (or project managers to keep it in the context of this thread). If the community (at least those participating in the thread) agree that these two are active enough and knowledgeable enough to run the project management tasks (maintaining the build, etc) then I will gladly give them that right.
Well, I guess I was concerned about nothing
Thank you all for alleviating my concerns…
mojomonk has made nymon and myself 'Project Owners', and is in the process of taking care of some forum rights; so now I guess it's time to form a plan of attack :). Anyone know of a website that can give us good timeline management? (I am surprised GoogleCode doesnt)
Anyone want to start shouting out tasks that need to be done in order to move on w/ 2.0?
I don’t know any free web project planner.
But i would suggest to register jME in Launchpad. There are already some bugs that refer to jME
I think we should continue to use the issue system in google code. We can tag the issues to place priority and milestone information on each one. An actual timeline is of no value unless there are people committed to addressing issues within the decided time frame. I think what we have now is sufficient, we just need to get organized.
An actual timeline is of no value unless there are people committed to addressing issues within the decided time frame
Good point :)