David, Ok...so I get it now. You were building a PMC all along. I want to apologize for my reaction...as I was unaware of this. It just looked to us like you instantly came up with a list.
It really would have helped if we all knew people were getting voted on all along. I think knowing who/when from the past and moving forward, this could have been avoided. I was certainly confused and this definitely now makes some sense. Thanks for clarifying this...and I will change to a +1. Please keep us in the loop on these sorts of things ;-) Jeff David Blevins wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > >> >> 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. > > Corrrect. And the key word is "inital" PMC Members. > >> 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 concur that this seems to be the real mistake. There also was > (maybe even still) some confusion about the list of names in the > proposal. It's the PMC list not the committer list, all committers > will still be committers at graduation. (restating that as I got an > email today asking why they were no longer on the project, so this > confusion still seems to be out there). > >> 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... > > That's a good discussion to have, going to answer that on Jeff's thread. > > -David > > > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9843256 Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
