Yep, I was wrong with '3 active committers', I've dropped the threeness part from the proposed changes.
I'll plan to bring it up again at a later date under an oversight topic. Hen On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Sam Ruby wrote: > robert burrell donkin wrote: > >> > >>>> What about jakarta-oro? > > > > this illustrates well the point i was trying to make before. > > > > ORO is actually better supervised than several other sub-project i could > > mention and yet because it doesn't have three active committers who are > > PMC members, the proposed bylaws say that it must lack sufficient > > oversight. if the pmc takes it's responsibilities seriously and adheres > > to the letter of the proposed bylaws, the only possible sanction would > > be to close the sub-project as soon as the number of active committers > > on the pmc falls below three (since the bylaws state that it is > > inadequately supervised). > > Oro is a good example. dfs reviews every change. Heck, he makes every > change. And the other three committers? They are all ASF members. > > The one place that "threeness" is crucially important is on releases. > It isn't so important that there are other PMC members overseeing the > day to day operations, but it is vitally important that three people > sign off on every release. > > - Sam Ruby > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
