Greg Stein wrote:
One answer might be to
constitute the Geronimo PMC early, and get some of the right people into
that PMC (e.g. geronimo committers + some incubator PMC members).
Just as the geronimo project/community needs to be incubated into the apache way - surely the geronimo PMC also needs to be helped into the apache way.
I think there is a good case for forming the geronimo PMC early - even if it has limited powers and is subject to the incubator PMC.
The geronimo PMC could start functioning now and give recommendations to the incubator PMC - who could accept/revise/vito as the case may be. Thus the geronimo PMC would learn the ropes - just as the geronimo community is.
While I'm here... if we do move discussions of committers to a closed PMC list - I think that the workings of the process must be made public. The PMC should reveal:
+ That it is considering and discussing a nomination for person X. Inviting any comments from the community. + The result of that discussion/vote. + If the result is negative, I think the PMC should at give a public short reason and a private detailed response as to why the nomination was declined.
cheers
