"Steve Loughran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The concept of a PMC, and the reason that anyone having a vote on > > the project code-base should be a member of the PMC, is to provide > > legal protection to those people as individuals. Not being on a PMC > > (as defined by the bylaws) means that each and every decision made > > by those committers is outside the scope of Apache's legal > > protection, which in turn means that if a mistake is made (or some > > asshole lawyer just feels like it), any suit against the committer > > actions (such as infringement of some unknown patent) would have to > > be defended by the committers on their own. The ASF would be able > > to defend the code itself, but not the people whose actions were > > outside the PMC. > > so, I'm in favor of legal indemnity for my commits, which, if it means PMC > membership, I'm happy to go with.
Me too. However, are all committers going to be members of the PMC? If so then I'm fine with flattening the structure and making every project a top level project and making every committer a PMC member for that project. Somehow I didn't get that drift from Roy's message (which I had seen earlier and which definitely scared me too), but I'd very much like to be wrong in this case. (No, not because of the flat structure but because of the legal cover.) Sanjiva.
