So Bill's analysis is as valid as anyone else's. I'd suggest that one of the discussion issues for a proposal for a new podling is to look at the proposed Mentors and discuss whether the proposed Mentors should be voted into the incubator PMC before the proposal itself is voted on. Not policy, mind you. Just something for those who know to know.
Craig On Jan 16, 2008, at 2:38 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:the IPMC votes on a proposal including the names of nominated Mentors.one of the proposed Mentors must be an Apache member. the others MUST be members of the IPMC. are we saying that: either A) as a result of the proposal vote, nominated Mentors are drafted on the IPMC by virtue of that vote or B) that once the vote is passed propective Mentors need to ask for election to the IPMC. any which are rejected must withdraw, A or B seem to me to be mutally exclusive. which is it to be?They do, don't they? I'd suggest the answer is C) they must be IPMC members to float their names as mentors. This is so easily remedied for ASF members that it's not an issue. As for non-Member IPMC folks, I continue to argue that its generally not a wise idea in the first place, and the last membership nominations backed up my opinion. This shouldn't discourage people from offering to help, but Mentor has a very specific meaning that requires some experience, which being a Member already validates, and previously serving on an existing PMC hints at. Helpers of all sorts are always welcome in new podlings as they find their ASF legs and set off on their quest to become TLPs. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
