----- Original Message ----
> From: Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:19:53 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:07:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: an experiment
> >>
> >> +1 to IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making
> >> process for voting in new committers (one question,
> >> would they need an ACK from IPMC - similar to how PMC's
> >> send a note to the board for an ACK for new pmc members)?
> >
> > That certainly sounds like a reasonable thing to do, sure.
> >
>
> +1
>
> >> In the 2nd question, "significant committers", are we asking
> >> mentors to identify such candidates for addition to IPMC,
> >> especially release managers for example? if so, +1 for that
> >> as well.
> >
>
> I was also curious as to the mechanism for determining
> "significance"--I would be satisfied with mentors'
> recommendation as outlined by dims.
By significant I mean active and clueful participants
in the project. IOW people who have earned the trust of
the project mentors. It would be an evolving process
for a new project: at first nobody would meet that
description, but over time as the mentors got to know
the participants and see how they work, collaborate,
review, and critique releases, we'd gain their trust
and offer them up to an IPMC vote for inclusion.
> I wonder if there should be some limit/function
> to determine the number of non-Member representatives
> a given podling may have on the IPMC.
I don't care for artificial limits. Trust has a way
of maintaining its own balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
