On Dec 19, 2003, at 2:58 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Radical view: allow the subprojects to send 1-2 delegates to the PMC and
require each subproject to send one or die. This would size the PMC, assure
that "heart attack in the crowd" syndrome doesn't take place and make the
discussion more manageable. Have the sub projects manage their own policy
for who to send and for how long under threat of being closed. This also
prevents "PMC for life" syndrome and makes sure that the PMC serves not only
the boards interests but the committers of the projects. It also puts
pressure on PMC members to keep discussions public.

I don't like this "1-2" delegates. All active committers in a subproject should be in the PMC ( unless they don't want to ).

The concern that there are too many people is absurd. What is missing is
a bit of discipline in proposals/votes - and that has nothing to do with the number of people.

As you said, all discussions should happen on jakarta-general - so each jakarta committer ( including those who chose not to be in PMC ) get to
participate and express their opinion. The vote should be on jakarta-general too ( counting as binding only PMC member votes, of course ).

Quite frankly, I have to disagree with you. There are many cases where PMC votes are not going to be public. Yes, I agree that everything that can be done in the wider community should be done in the wider community, but given the goal of PMC ~= 100% committers, a vote on a PMC list is going to be inclusive of ~= 100% committers. Yes, it then leaves out the rest of the community, as community isn't just committers, but from a legal standpoint, the members of the PMC are the votes that count. (As you note).

This brings up an important point - the PMC membership does not have to be limited to members or committers, by my read of the bylaws. If we have the unlikely situation where a person is significantly interested by can't be a committer for some reason, they still can be on the PMC.

One example might be a lawyer working closely w/ a community (for whatever reason) - that lawyer might be providing tremendous input and participation, but has no need/use for committership. That person could still be a member of the PMC.

The difference between committers who are in PMC and the other should be only in the counting of the votes.

The other argument - that nobody can or want to be responsible for codebases he is not involved with - is also bad. Each PMC member is
overseeing whatever he chooses to ( typically the projects he is involved with and some he voluunteers to ). Every member of the PMC
can vote on any issue - but it is common sense that those who are not
involved with a codebase will abstain ( unless they have a good reason not to ).

Yes. I'll bring that up in another thread, as it's important, and I know people are confused.


Geir Magnusson Jr                                   203-247-1713(m)

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

Reply via email to