Henri Yandell wrote:
On 12/2/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this culture needs to change: there are still too few people nominating
new pmc'ers. IMHO it is an important part of the responsibility that
comes with nominating someone as a committer that you will guide them
through the first few weeks or months as a committer and (when they are
ready) nominate them for the pmc.
the progression from committers to pmc'er should be natural and
relatively quick. definitely, all release managers should be pmc'ers.
anyone who knows enough about apache to manage a release should be on
the pmc.
It's the wrong list, ie) should be on general@, but I'm thinking that
we should just set in stone a date at which point a new committer is
listed on the pmc list and asked if they should be on the pmc (to the
person nominating them as committers).
So let's say Robert becomes a committer today. This would be noted in
a file. In 6->9 months time (ie when the chair does the report), any 6
month old committers would involve a question to the person nominating
them as committers as to why they shouldn't be nominated.
So culture change. One in which people are challenged to exclude, not
expected to remember to include.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hen:
This is a valuable discussion but perhaps we need a different subject
for the thread?
To get back to the original subject matter:
It looks as though Rory was pretty well able to resolve the questions
about the provenance of his code, although, I understand the lawyers may
still want to look a little closer. Do you have any idea when this
cloudlet might be lifted and we can contemplate a release?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
