On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > > >> People, > >> > >> since Cocoon got approuved as a top level project, we have a PMC, but > >> the ASF is designed in such a way that each PMC can choose its own > >> rules and policies. > > > > > > > > <snip because="agree"/>
<snip because="agree as well"/> > > > >> <added author="SM"> > >> Any opposive vote must contain a detailed description of the reasoning > >> that led to that vote and potentially indicate an alternative proposal > >> that he/she would favor. > >> </added> > > > > > > > > Requiring explanation of a negative vote is good. However, if the > > explanation leads to an alternative proposal, that proposal should be > > discussed separately, in order not to start a discussion within the vote > > thread (SoC ?). > > Keep in mind the purpose of this document. It is for PMC related > proposals and votes. > > That means topics like changing the official PMC documentation (charter > and bylaws), or procedural changes (new mailing list, adding a CVS > repository, etc.). > > It is not for general coding directions. > The PMC is not responsible > for code, they are responsible for community. Hmm.. IIRC I remember dicussions held at Apache Con in Las Vegas where the general expectation was that a PMC *is* responsible for the code at least concerning licensing issues (Jakarta being to big for code oversight of the PMC). This is one of the reasons why this restructuring of ASF projects (promoting sub project like Cocoon and Avalon as top level projects) takes place. Giacomo
