(Again, sorry about the quoting.)


   1. An unintentional omission or mistake.
   2. Watchful care or management; supervision


The board expects PMCs to exercise (2) so as to avoid (1). :)

For a PMC this boils down to issues of "committer consensus" and "intellectual property". In the past, there have been incidents at Jakarta on both counts that lead to suspension of access, for both individuals and modules (on different occasions).

IMHO, if we were to

* require subprojects to file regular reports with bullets regarding consensus and oversight, and

* subscribe all committers to the PMC list where these reports are filed

then we'd be able to defuse these happenstances before they turn into incidents.

IMHO, the one and only set of individuals that can provide "watchful care" over a codebase is the set of committers we already have for each subproject.

IMHO, each and every committer to a Jakarta subproject has already passed through a gauntlet that proves they are PMC material and entitled to binding votes.

All we need to do is complete the process that promotes our committers to PMC members with binding votes, as our original guidelines contemplated, and require subprojects to provide regular status reports. (Just as the board requires our project to report.)

As both Roy and Greg have said, if the Jakarta committers truly understood how few rights and privileges they have, they would be demanding both ASF and PMC membership. Few do, so few have.


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

Reply via email to