On Dec 29, 2003, at 10:17 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
----- Original message ----------------------------------------> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
<SNIP/>
Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management (i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.
All active committers should be "interested" or else they wouldn't be active committers.
Please - interested in participating on the PMC.
Oversight is not some "otherwordly" task to be conducted by an elite subset of our committers. IP oversight is something *every* decision-maker should be thinking about *every* time they commit a line of code. Consensus oversight is something *every* decision-maker should be thinking about *every* time they post to the DEV list. If committers aren't thinking about this now, it's only because they have no reporting requirements to remind them.
Ted, we all agree.
Our community has already decided who its decision-makers should be: the committers.
The Jakarta PMC doesn't need to second-guess the Jakarta community. We simply need to ratify the choices the community, in its wisdom, has already made.
Moving forward, we may want to distinguish between "newbie" committers and the "silver-haired" PMC members. But, as it stands, when each of these committers were selected, they were selected to be *the* decision-makers. They were selected to do what the PMC does: actively manage the codebase.
We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer decide for themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be.
I never understand why you keep doing this. There is no 'schism' between the PMC and the community, and no one is proposing it.
I hate to "appeal to authority" because the ASF charter does provide a healthy bit of freedom for any given PMC, but for example, if we want to follow the model of the httpd project, from which the ASF bylaws were fashioned, and I know you are a vocal proponent of the 'ASF Way', it is my understanding they invite committers onto the PMC after some time after receiving committership when it's clear that is appropriate for that person. Committing != oversight.
There are people who are committers that may not wish to participate on the PMC. We want everyone to, but if they aren't *interested* in doing it, putting them on the PMC achieves nothing, and actually, IMO, weakens the PMC. There are all sorts of valid reasons to not want to be on the PMC, I suppose, and we should never stop inviting that person.
100% should be the goal, not the requirement.
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
