At 09:24 AM 11/5/2002 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Make them emeritus and when they find time to contribute again, they can get back easily?
Perfect. I hadn't realized that was the point of emeritus status.
> Another option would be to allow the PMC to nominate and elect the > chair from their number rather than taking a vote of committers
I don't think this would work as board would need to appoint an officer when it passes the resolution.
If the chair needs to be appointed to a position within Apache as part of the resolution then I agree, it is clearly needed in the resolution.
> Would the declaration in the resolution be binding on the terms > allowed in the bylaws?
I'm not entirely sure, but I think the board would have to approve the bylaws - which would change part of the resolution in retrospect.
If the resolution's definition of the term of the chair isn't binding, no problem. It probably isn't a big deal either way since it is hard to imagine someone raising the issue anyway, but I spent a number of years working on a program that analyzed legal text and the cases I've read have made me overly cautious about such things. :-)
At 09:07 PM 11/5/2002 +1100, Conor MacNeill wrote:
So how about this "the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Apache Ant build tool and supporting task libraries"? Not sure if that is better - does anyone have any better words?
My preference would be to keep it generic. As I said, the decision regarding specific subprojects should be kept separate from the resolution and this wording appears to already exclude many of them. The current goal of Ant is to create a build tool. That tool and anything that interacts with or supports it are at least potentially in scope, but I think the committers at the time should be able to decide case-by-case.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
