Jeff,
I'm really glad you are happy and am also really glad you spoke up,
this is critical to a health community.
I do have one lesson for the group to learn and I hope that you can
help me make it. It's that if you (anyone) suspect something is not
right or unclear, as a matter of respect and trust you can't fall
into the emotional trap of thinking that the it was intentional or
malicous. If your first post is to scream foul or bloody murder, you
won't be doing yourself or the group any good and will likely end up
making more problems than you intend to solve. As a matter of
respect, patients and trust the best first course of action is to
simply ask for more information in a very non-aggressive and non-
accusatory fashion before coming to any conclusions.
If we can do this, there's no limit to what we can achieve together.
Very best regards,
David
On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:54 AM, jgenender wrote:
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.
