On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Mck <[email protected]> wrote: > +1: let's promote them! > +0: tend to agree on the promotion, but had no chance to review the > projects deeply; > -0: tend to disagree on the promotion, but won't veto it; > -1: don't promote them (please explain why).
+1. When Antonio originally posted the vote he asked for (as I understood it) +1's only from people who were committing to actively contribute to the code. At the time I was unable to commit to that so I think the vote died. I'm changing my stance now for the following reasons: 1) We've all informally agreed that we don't see much development future for the Tiles 2x branch, so there's really no reason to preserve that as the main development line. All of the interest at this point seems to be pointing towards the 3x line, so let's go ahead and move that forward. 2) I'm still not in a position where I can commit to active work on this code, but I am willing to "mentor" the work of others by providing a voice on the PMC. That means I'm willing to review the code, check, and vote on releases. If it so happens that I become comfortable enough with the code to answer support questions, then I'll also provide support on the users@ list. I think it is prudent for us as the Tiles PMC to monitor this very closely. I see this as a final opportunity for the PMC to go active again. If it does not happen within a reasonable period of time, the responsible move (IMO) would be for us to go to the attic. If it does happen and my level of activity remains what it is today, the responsible thing for me would be to go emeritus (after growing the PMC with more active members). So, I'm just saying that to fully flesh out my position on this. I really hope it works out and I'll do what I can to contribute. Greg
