On 30 September 2011 16:48, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > ... > >> >> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If >> the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine. >> >> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more >> important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC >> member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate >> transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member >> directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a >> generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors >> filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC >> require certain parts of the community to report status periodically? >> > > From a purely ASF point of view there are very few things that require PMC > oversight. the following are the only ones that jump to mind: > > - release votes (which equates to IP due diligence) > - new committers/PMC members
One more: - board reports Ross
