Merit does not expire. People who are not active today should be able to become active tomorrow without having to jump through approval hoops.
In projects there is no concept of emeritus PMC. Here in the IPMC the issue is very different. Most people earn merit transitively - become a member, become a mentor, become an IPMC member. It's different. Please don't use what is being discussed here as being transitive to a PMC based entirely on directly earned merit. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:46:09 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates)) I absolutely agree with Greg Stein. I can't find any single reason to keep unsubscribed members of IPMC in the roster. These members can be asked to subscribe, and if they do, then ok; if don't - it is perfectly ok to remove. Similarly, I don't see reasons for having inactive TLP PMC members. I've suggested the same change in Apache Ignite, but I don't clearly understand why remained members resisting this change. пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 09:58, Ross Gardler <r...@gardler.me>: > That's right Greg. And since we are filling in gaps for people... > > I was originally against the pTLP concept (though I supported the > experiments) or any of the derivatives that came from it. I think I have > changed my position. Largely based on the fact that every single project > I've discussed the ASF with in the last 3-5 years has had a very inaccurate > perception of how the ASF works. I believe a large part of this is due, in > part, to the issues being discussed in this thread. > > I do not understand how a foundation which prides itself in having very > little bureaucratic red tape can be seen as having so much red tape. The > projects I talk to just want to build software. It used to be that the ASF > focused on running the legal and operational aspects of the foundation > projects and developers on projects wrote code. I'm not sure that's true > anymore. > > We need to fix it. > > I look forward to hearing how the IPMC will seek to strip down the > bureaucracy and get back to mentoring the incoming projects on how the ASF > is structured so they can get (relatively) quick and clear answers to their > questions. > > Ross > > ________________________________________ > From: Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 10:19 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy > general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling > ... release candidates)) > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ross Gardler <r...@gardler.me> wrote: > > > If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to > > act on behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the > > foundation. > > > >... > > > Podlings would only become full TLPs once they have demonstrated their > > ability to do formal releases. > > > > The above pair of concepts was offered in $priorCycle as "provisional TLPs" > (pTLP). I believe the idea ended when Sam pointed out that if a pTLP is > trusted, then why not just call it a TLP and trust it to label its releases > appropriately? Thus, just create TLPs immediately for a "podling" > > [ I know Ross knows this; but for $others who may want to look at > historical proposals, and compare/contrast to current discussion ... search > for "pTLP" ] > > Cheers, > -g > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
