On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for
them to offer to help rather than having one person define the
list. I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this. In
the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be
added and that request was missed somehow. That is what really
caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance
in how incubator does these things.
The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our
Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri). Then people were added over time.
If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC
members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an
official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable
way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project.
The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion, seems
to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to the
community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that
members were added over time. However, I cannot find any
notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were being
made.
I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the current
PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member was added
to the PPMC. This information can then be used in discussing the
proposed PMC membership...
Doing the PMC == commit thing is interesting, but no Apache project
has ever done that and don't really know that'd I'd want to be the
first, especially as we've done so well at keeping the dev list as
our "center of gravity".
I tend to agree. I think there is additional PMC education that needs
to occur. There are additional things that need to be learned for
project oversight. Best to keep the two things separate... However,
this does not mean that the PMC should be secret...
--kevan
