Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > [...] > > When we > > need to introduce new people to PMC membership and retire > > old ones, we need a consistent definition of "PMC membership". > > Just my 2c, but IMHO anyone that partecipates actively on the list with > discussions, suggestion and social engineering is "active". > > Probably it's the "committer" part that is confusing, since it's more > about "committable", ie who has the right to commit. > > As for retirement and taking new ones, ATM I don't see a problem in > having them deemed inactive if they do not partecipate for some time, > having "partecipate" a quite wide meaning. > > For example, Ross Gardler has not really committed bif stuff since some > time now on Krysalis, but I honestly do consider him "active", since he > has been really helping with suggestions, tips, discussions and so on. I > would never retire someone like him :-) > > I'll leave the definition of the details to others though, these are > just my two pennies.
All of us need to help to define the details. These formative stages of the PMC are vital. Earlier in this thread i alerted the list to what i see as a major flaw. I think that the answer is simple: The initial PMC is formed from "all committers" - the whole list at xml-cocoon2/who.xml no matter what their status. They can take themselves off the PMC if they wish. No distinction is the best way. --David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
