+1 for Mike. On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 at 05:33 Hemant Bhanawat <hbhana...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1 > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:37 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > If you hold a public vote to make them committers, they are not on the > > > PPMC. > > > If you hold a private vote, likewise. If you hold a vote to make them > > > committers > > > as well as PPMC members, and send the new list of PPMC members to the > > > IPMC as lazy concensus of the roster change, then they become both. > I'd > > > like > > > to see that happen. These words matter in voting, and we might as well > > > get > > > them right every time a new committer and/or [P]PMC member is > suggested. > > > > > > > [I realize this contradicts my early comments about treating > people-votes, > > any > > committee-change vote with active consensus and unanimity. The IPMC or > the > > Board (for incubating and top-level projects, respectively) do not > pretend > > to know > > all of the committers to our project, unlike the project's committee > > members, > > and those names are brought up for passive approval entirely only for > > reporting > > and a bit extra scrutiny. They realistically won't be contradicted > unless > > someone > > has some seriously negative karma that the IPMC or Board are aware of, > but > > the > > IPMC and Board aren't expected to '+1' each person they don't know of.] > > >
