On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:

> If the aim of the PMC is to house a vast majority of committers, and if
> the role of a PMC member is simply to follow some guidelines and
> regulate development, I don't see the distinction between a PMC member
> and a committer. If the PMC membership requires legal and governing
> skills, I am not sure the PMC can attain vast majority. Is there a legal
> binding between a member and Jakarta/Apache that does not exist between
> a committer and Apache?

Yep. There is very little legal binding between a committer and Apache,
apart from the legal fact that the committer is donating code to Apache.

An Apache Member is a part of the Apache organisation, while a PMC member
is recognised by the Apache organisation as being responsible for that
TLP. There's no need for them to be an Apache Member however.

[IANAL etc, this is how I see it from descriptions people have given]

> I am certainly willing (and want) to share some responsibilities to help
> grow Jakarta but I want to be clear on the responsibilities I will be
> taking on as a member and if I will be eligible.

By being an active committer, you are eligible. As for what
responsibilities are, attempts to define the role of a PMC member have not
gone well so far but will hopefully get there.


Hen


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

Reply via email to