Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:

> > First off, as a commiter your entitled to be proposed for membership of
> > PMC, which I'd be happy to do.

> Thanks for the offer but I don't know if I would qualify for one.
> The description on the website is pretty broad.

Harish, as I see it, part of the problem comes from a misunderstanding about
the nature of the PMC.  The term "management" has been misunderstood in the
context of an ASF Project.

The intended purpose for the PMC is that the PMC members are the core group
making all decisions related to an ASF Project.  That includes voting on
code changes, voting on new Committers, voting on new PMC members.  Not all
Committers may be on the PMC, but the majority should be -- and those who
aren't do not have binding votes (see explanation below).  I recently did a
quick survey of some projects:

  Project       # PMC    # Committers     %
  HTTP Server:    43         59         73%
  APR             29         43         67%
  Cocoon          31         67         46%
  Jakarta         42+       352         12%

Not all Committers are still active, so the ratio of PMC to active
Committers is higher, but the difference is still pretty clear.  The Jakarta
PMC, using the current structure, is missing 100s of members.

Now here is where the problem comes in.  Although every PMC is free to
establish its normal rules, the legal system also plays a part.  The
structure of the ASF exists to protect us.  In order to be protected,
decision makers must be PMC members.  Decisions include code changes.

The discussions taking place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] regarding how to fix
the situation take different directions, but I think that everyone agrees
that the vast majority of Jakarta Committers must be on a responsible PMC.
The question, as I see it, is really about *how* we're going to organize it,
not *if*.

        --- Noel

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to