Henri Yandell wrote:

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.

I am sorry if I am being naive, but can it not be enforced that a committer should also be bound the way a member is? That way the responsibilities are borne by every committer and we could have a very small team of members for governance.

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.

I am sorry, I meant to say if I would qualify for the responsibilities.


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

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

Reply via email to