On Wed, 21 May 2003 03:29 am, Steve Loughran wrote: > +1, with couple of questions > > -I'm unsure about the point that Active PMC members have the binding vote > for committers -to date its been open to all committers to have binding > votes. Is there a reason for the change? >
The PMC role is to do with the management of the Ant project, while the committers role is the management of an Ant codebase. Addition of committers to the project is therefore more within the PMC's responsibility. The procedure used previously was appropriate under Jakarta's umbrella but the proposed bylaws bring us into line with standard Apache practice, such as httpd (see http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html) > -We dont have anything (formally) about the survey process used to cover > Java1.1 to 1.2 migration. I dont think this is an issue; it was just a > survey to see what the users would think of something we were to vote on, > but I think it worked well. Maybe we should say that 'changes of a > fundamental nature' may need to be bounced past the users as well as > developers, as now we have two mail lists, the users arent always aware of > what is going on. Of course if we formalise it, then you have to say 'what > is so fundamental to merit a survey', which argues against mentioning the > subject at all We could add an item for "development standards" as an action. This would over things like JDK versions, code style guidelines etc. Or we could, as you suggest, simply leave this to unwritten convention. Most systems of laws, constitutions, etc rely on such conventions to make things workable. Conor
