On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Roland Weber wrote:
Hello Henri,
I'm one of those whom it concerns: committer but not PMC.
So being on a PMC means that your legal protection is something you're
supposed to be proactive about
Meaning that a PMC member should get an insurance that covers the cost
of lawsuits, or contact a lawyer right away to discuss the legal
implications of a lawsuit that might be filed in a different country,
or what?
Sorry, that's very badly worded on my part. I didn't mean it to be as
scary as it sounds or to imply that being on a PMC requires more legal
consultation than just being a developer of open source anywhere.
By being a part of the PMC (and active on the PMC if you're an active
committer), then you are ensuring that the foundation is involved in
decisions and not just you personally. This increases the level to which
the foundation has your back should a legal issue come up (not that any
of this is defined, so I'm just passing on things as they've been
explained to me over the last couple of years - hopefully accurately :)).
I'm of the opinion that if we have a committer who doesn't want to be on
the pmc, [...], that that committer should become a contributor again.
Meaning that because I don't want to get an insurance or contact a
lawyer proactively, all the code I submit has to be checked in by
another committer, of whom we have too few anyway in HttpComponents?
I hope I got you all wrong, because the way I understand it,
your proposal sounds really bad.
Sorry to cause worry. It's the other way around from how you've
interpreted it and my reason for the above opinion is that I'd be worried
about someone who wanted to sit and code but wanted to continue to
delegate responsibility to the pmc/foundation for their code.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
