David Crossley wrote: > Now all that waiting causes problems, e.g. Cyriaque's case > had successful vote, but we cannot yet announce it to the > dev list.
I didn't follow Cyriaque's case closely so I'm not sure what problem this creates, could you explain this please. > It would be better if we could announce them to dev@ list > at step 3 and just say that there are more procedural steps > which will take some time. [...] > What if the board denied them being a PMC member? > I cannot see why they would, but that procedural step > still needs to happen. If this does not happen, why is this part of the procedure still in place. As it is I'd not (0) be in favour of just jumping it because of the complications involved if they choose to exercise their right to deny them membership. How about starting a motion to do away with this step or else simplify procedure (why does it need to wait for step 5 so that it doesn't get delayed). -- Ferdinand Soethe
