> * Require all Jakarta products (or subprojects) to file regular reports
> with the PMC.
You mean 'make each subproject work like a TLP' don't you?

> Since the PMC cannot delegate its responsibilities, the report would
> have to be prepared by a PMC member, ideally one directly involved with
> subproject. (A likely suspect being the DEV list moderator.)
Er, doesn't this just emphasise how broken this process is?

> [snip]
> Work regarding a specific subproject can continue to occur on that
> subproject's DEV list. PMC members (aka committers) following that list
> can vote on its releases and other day-to-day affairs. So long as the
> minimum quorum is met, the vote is legal and binding.
So, we are trying to delegate power to subprojects? Er, but we can't now can

So who can vote? 'Following the list' is a very vague term. Presumably I can
simply subscribe to struts-dev and then vote, never having even used struts?
It also seems highly dubious to say that a vote is legal and binding if most
of the PMC never knew the vote occurred.

> Under proposition (1), the significant events occurring for each
> subproject would be reported to the PMC list, for the review of the PMC
> at-large.
So the PMC is reviewing events already happened, not actively managing. Er,
sounds like the relationship between the board and a PMC to me.

> PMC membership is voluntary. Anyone can resign from the PMC at any
> time. If a volunteer would like to be a committer, but not a PMC member,
> then each subproject can then decide whether to support separate
> committer and PMC member roles or not.

I would suggest that there is nothing in this proposal that will cause the
board members to have any more faith in Jakarta than they do now. And thats
because it changes nothing of significance.


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