I'd first like to hear what the other mentors (James and Paul) think
about the process/guidelines I've proposed.
Cliff
On 10/19/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Cliff,
>
>
> I am happy with this process, would the next step be to put names
> forward to
> be voted into the PPMC?
>
> Regards
> Carl.
>
>
>
>
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> > I'm finally getting back to the PPMC discussion (see below for a
> > reminder of where we left off)...
> >
> > Some of you may have read some of the debate about how to set
up the
> > PPMC on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list a few weeks ago (if you're a
> > committer, you really should be subscribed to that list --
lots you
> > can learn from even just lurking). There are still a few
opinions on
> > how to do things, but here is my proposal for this project:
> >
> > - Each mentor is a member of the PPMC.
> >
> > - All committers should have the opportunity to be members of the
> > PPMC, because I believe much of the purpose is to learn how
PMCs work.
> >
> > - Any committer who would rather just limit their
participation to
> > committing code without being involved in broader project issues
> > should not feel at all obligated to become part of the PPMC.
To be on
> > a PMC is work on behalf of the Foundation -- not everyone
wants to do
> > that, which is fine. A PPMC is not quite a PMC, but it's the
same
> > idea.
> >
> > - Any committer who has not really been participating in the
project
> > should not ask to me part of the PPMC. I'd suggest such folks
spend
> > some time contributing to the project first. I would also
discourage
> > people from asking to become part of the PPMC if they aren't
expecting
> > to contribute to the discussions. I think this is especially
> > important when the idea is to learn how PMCs work, which is much
> > easier done when you are participating, rather than just
lurking and
> > occasionally voting.
> >
> > - As far as process goes, I'd like to just follow Noel's
suggestion
> > below and have the mentors vote in the PPMC members. As one
of the
> > mentors, I've described how I will vote above. I'd be
interested in
> > hearing whether the other mentors have concerns or a completely
> > different idea. Otherwise, I'd suggest that each committer
consider
> > my comments above and then nominate yourself if you still feel
you
> > want to/should be on the PPMC.
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> >
> > On 9/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >> > here's the question:
> >>
> >> > should every committer automatically be a member of the
PPMC?
> >>
> >> > Or should only a smaller set of committers (the people most
> >> > directly responsible for most of the existing work to date)
> >> > be on the PPMC until they vote to bring in others?
> >>
> >> > My personal opinion is that every committer should be on
the PPMC
so
> >> > that they better understand and have the opportunity to
play a part
> >> > in that aspect of Apache.
> >>
> >> > However, I think the other point of view is quite
reasonable (which
I
> >> > believe is held by the chair of the Incubator, Noel Bergman).
> >>
> >> Actually, I really don't care. What I have said is that
> >> structurally, the
> >> initial PPMC consists of the mentors, and we bootstrap: they
vote on
> >> whom
> >> they feel should belong on the PPMC. Whether that is a few
people or
> >> everyone isn't my concern. My issue is purely procedural,
leaving
the
> >> policy in the hands of each set of Mentors.
> >>
> >> Now, technically, any vote effecting the ASF (new Commmitter or
Release)
> >> counts only votes from the PMC, which is why the Incubator
PMC needs
> >> to be
> >> informed of the vote, and why I keep pushing to have at least
three
(3)
> >> Mentors per project, so that each can more easily muster
sufficient
> >> votes.
> >>
> >> I hope that my position is clearer now.
> >>
> >> --- Noel
>
>
