On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Chip Childers wrote: >> The last ASF board meeting dissolved the ConCom PMC, and has split out >> responsibilities to other parts of the foundation. This impacts us >> specifically, in that approvals for the use of our Brand (including >> events) are primarily the responsibility of the PMC. >> >> That being said, we are now being asked to switch from concom approval >> to a trademarks@ lazy consensus. Guidance from the board was to change >> our trademark guidelines to require trademarks@ lazy concensus, and that >> the PMC was actually accountable for all of these approvals. > > This looks good to me, with one question: > > Who speaks for the PMC here? Should we have someone on point for this so > we ensure that people get a response in a timely fashion? >
I personally like the board's method of approving new PMC members - at least one director ACKs and given silence you get approved, and I think that works well here. Any PMC member can raise a flag if concerned, but doesn't require a vote or any real process to speak of, aside from time. > We should also spell out: Put a [SPONSORSHIP] tag in the subject of the > email, starting a new thread for each event - so we explicitly see an > email for each event in its own thread. > I don't understand the benefit of this. Who would it benefit? This list isn't a high volume one to begin with, so not like we need to create tons of rules for filtering email. --David
