+1 from me too. Paul
PS I don't disagree with that definition of active either. On 10/23/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1, sounds fine to me. On 10/20/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cliff > > I've read your note a couple of times. > > In summary it seems to say that: > 1. all *active* committers can join the PPMC > 2. they don't have to > 3. the mentors decide who is active > > Unless I missed something, I'm +1 on that. > > Paul > > On 10/19/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Paul Fremantle > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > > > -- > Paul Fremantle > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
-- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
