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]
