RE: Updating the PMC bylaws
But those projects won't have 3 active committers. Watchdog and ECS are good examples. IMO The Watchdog debate, that resulted in you and I accepting a monitoring role, is a good outcome. Basically Jakarta is a single ASF project, the PMC is responsible for everything, and the notion of herierchy and delegation are being phased out. Therefore we can insist upon PMC members as active commiters on active projects, but that doesn't mean that the converse, we must have active commiters on inactive projects, is true. We must have PMC members as active participants, but participation on an inactive project is as little as monitoring the mail and acting as the first point of contact for anyone who wants to revitalise the project, or providing a heads-up to the rest of the PMC should any issue arise. I don't think we need do more than close the mailing lists of inactive projects and direct people to this (general@) list as long as we can be confident that someone here will take an interest in any mail that arrives. Don't forget that PMC members have karma (or the right to be given karma) for all of the sub-projects, meaning that (a) no subproject should ever be without a PMC member/commiter and (b) by making the distinction be active comiters we're making a rod for our own backs, when we could ask for active participants and allow PMC members to be included in the audit of accountability even if they only read and respond to mail. d. *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limited. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ** - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], robert burr ell donkin writes: that's why i would prefer something more positive. i'd prefer something about mandating the pmc to take action to ensure appropriate supervision when the number of active committers on the pmc falls below three. this could mean something as simple as asking for volunteers (from the pmc) to monitor the sub-project, restructuring the control structure (keeping the code base and infrastructure but eliminating the formal sub-project with all committers gaining karma on request and all decisions passing directly to the pmc), hibernating the sub-project or closing it completely. Here's the way I see things, using ORO as the running example. There's no question ORO has a deficit of committers. Therefore, all release votes are now performed by the PMC. (Technically, the release votes for allsubprojects are performed by the PMC, but it just so happens that those PMC members voting are committers for the subproject and the votes happen on the subproject list.) I see that as the default stopgap measure to ensure users can get bug fix release while maintaining PMC oversight until further corrective measures are taken. However, as much as I and others have proposed various solutions to the ORO committer deficit, we haven't built up the motivation to act on them. That's where I think something explicit is needed in the bylaws to force this kind of issue to be resolved, instead of lingering on the way it has with ORO. Although I don't like the idea of closing down subprojects, the threat of it in the absence of some other resolution may provide the impetus required to avoid a perpetual status quo. That's all to say I +1 Robert's preference, but I don't have anything more specific to suggest than making explicit the requirement that the PMC takes over release votes for subprojects with active committer deficits. daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
Henri Yandell wrote: ... However, the aim for this modification is to bring it in line with reality and not future plans and we've never had a PMC member who was not a committer. Every (loose) description I've seen of a PMC describes it as the active committers to a project. Yup. So I'd like to stay with committers if possible. The PMC will contain at least 3 committers from each subproject [1] Even better: make it *active* committers. If person went inactive on the project, ideally he should be replaced with someone who is more active, in order to better represent project, and current status of the project. Vadim [1] http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
Vadim Gritsenko wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: ... However, the aim for this modification is to bring it in line with reality and not future plans and we've never had a PMC member who was not a committer. Every (loose) description I've seen of a PMC describes it as the active committers to a project. Yup. So I'd like to stay with committers if possible. The PMC will contain at least 3 committers from each subproject [1] Even better: make it *active* committers. If person went inactive on the project, ideally he should be replaced with someone who is more active, in order to better represent project, and current status of the project. What about jakarta-oro? - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Sam Ruby wrote: Vadim Gritsenko wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: ... However, the aim for this modification is to bring it in line with reality and not future plans and we've never had a PMC member who was not a committer. Every (loose) description I've seen of a PMC describes it as the active committers to a project. Yup. So I'd like to stay with committers if possible. The PMC will contain at least 3 committers from each subproject [1] Even better: make it *active* committers. If person went inactive on the project, ideally he should be replaced with someone who is more active, in order to better represent project, and current status of the project. What about jakarta-oro? It does have 3 committers on the PMC. Whether they are active or not, I'm unsure, might only be 2. It's planned to merge with Regexp and maybe into Commons over time though, so there's definitely a tendency towards larger oversight. Something like ECS is more likely to be a problem I think. It's not actually an active community (as far as I can tell) so pretty unlikely to have strong oversight. It still has 3 committers on the PMC, they just might not be very active there (or even listening to the list). Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Updating the PMC bylaws
Hi, It does have 3 committers on the PMC. Whether they are active or not, I'm unsure, might only be 2. It's planned to merge with Regexp and maybe into Commons over time though, so there's definitely a tendency towards larger oversight. Something like ECS is more likely to be a problem I think. It's not actually an active community (as far as I can tell) so pretty unlikely to have strong oversight. It still has 3 committers on the PMC, they just might not be very active there (or even listening to the list). Yeah, we should consider what to do about dormant projects. We've established we don't want to kill them, and we want to keep the option of project revival. That's good. But those projects won't have 3 active committers. Watchdog and ECS are good examples. (On a side note, for a long time now I've thought ORO and RegExp should merge, and maybe the combined one should further merge with lang. After all, JDK 1.4 which is approaching 2 years old has this regexp functionality). Yoav Shapira This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
Henri Yandell wrote: What about jakarta-oro? It does have 3 committers on the PMC. Whether they are active or not, I'm unsure, might only be 2. It's planned to merge with Regexp and maybe into Commons over time though, so there's definitely a tendency towards larger oversight. http://www.apache.org/~jim/projects.html#jakarta-oro jakarta-oro has four committers defined. Two are not current members of the Jakarta PMC: James Duncan Davidson Jon Stevens One is a member of the Jakarta PMC, but is not active in the he has not committed to cvs or posted to the dev mailing list this year (in fact, he unsubscribed in March): Craig R. McClanahan One is a member of the PMC and is active: Daniel F. Savarese - Sam Ruby P.S. In no way should this be construed as a lack of confidence in dfs. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
On 6 Aug 2004, at 18:23, Sam Ruby wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: What about jakarta-oro? It does have 3 committers on the PMC. Whether they are active or not, I'm unsure, might only be 2. It's planned to merge with Regexp and maybe into Commons over time though, so there's definitely a tendency towards larger oversight. http://www.apache.org/~jim/projects.html#jakarta-oro jakarta-oro has four committers defined. Two are not current members of the Jakarta PMC: James Duncan Davidson Jon Stevens One is a member of the Jakarta PMC, but is not active in the he has not committed to cvs or posted to the dev mailing list this year (in fact, he unsubscribed in March): Craig R. McClanahan One is a member of the PMC and is active: Daniel F. Savarese - Sam Ruby P.S. In no way should this be construed as a lack of confidence in dfs. this illustrates well the point i was trying to make before. ORO is actually better supervised than several other sub-project i could mention and yet because it doesn't have three active committers who are PMC members, the proposed bylaws say that it must lack sufficient oversight. if the pmc takes it's responsibilities seriously and adheres to the letter of the proposed bylaws, the only possible sanction would be to close the sub-project as soon as the number of active committers on the pmc falls below three (since the bylaws state that it is inadequately supervised). that's why i would prefer something more positive. i'd prefer something about mandating the pmc to take action to ensure appropriate supervision when the number of active committers on the pmc falls below three. this could mean something as simple as asking for volunteers (from the pmc) to monitor the sub-project, restructuring the control structure (keeping the code base and infrastructure but eliminating the formal sub-project with all committers gaining karma on request and all decisions passing directly to the pmc), hibernating the sub-project or closing it completely. if i was on the pmc then i'd be much more worried by some of the projects with lots of active committers (and so their own sub-culture) which have very of them on the pmc. it is very, very difficult to supervise very active projects from outside. there have never been the problems with small and mature sub-projects that we've seen with large and active ones. i personally think that a rule that ensures the pmc takes positive action to ensure appropriate supervision when the ratio of committers to pmc members falls below 50% (say) would be a good complement to the rule-of-three. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
robert burrell donkin wrote: What about jakarta-oro? this illustrates well the point i was trying to make before. ORO is actually better supervised than several other sub-project i could mention and yet because it doesn't have three active committers who are PMC members, the proposed bylaws say that it must lack sufficient oversight. if the pmc takes it's responsibilities seriously and adheres to the letter of the proposed bylaws, the only possible sanction would be to close the sub-project as soon as the number of active committers on the pmc falls below three (since the bylaws state that it is inadequately supervised). Oro is a good example. dfs reviews every change. Heck, he makes every change. And the other three committers? They are all ASF members. The one place that threeness is crucially important is on releases. It isn't so important that there are other PMC members overseeing the day to day operations, but it is vitally important that three people sign off on every release. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
Yep, I was wrong with '3 active committers', I've dropped the threeness part from the proposed changes. I'll plan to bring it up again at a later date under an oversight topic. Hen On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Sam Ruby wrote: robert burrell donkin wrote: What about jakarta-oro? this illustrates well the point i was trying to make before. ORO is actually better supervised than several other sub-project i could mention and yet because it doesn't have three active committers who are PMC members, the proposed bylaws say that it must lack sufficient oversight. if the pmc takes it's responsibilities seriously and adheres to the letter of the proposed bylaws, the only possible sanction would be to close the sub-project as soon as the number of active committers on the pmc falls below three (since the bylaws state that it is inadequately supervised). Oro is a good example. dfs reviews every change. Heck, he makes every change. And the other three committers? They are all ASF members. The one place that threeness is crucially important is on releases. It isn't so important that there are other PMC members overseeing the day to day operations, but it is vitally important that three people sign off on every release. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
looks good :) a few minor points: 1. it'd be tidy to specify the voting process required to change the bylaws 2. it would probably be a good idea to specify some basic, default rules about decision taking on the pmc (votes, quorums, casting vote?) in the bylaws. 3. it'd probably be a good idea to refer to another document containing voting guidelines which could be changed more frequently without board approval. 4. maybe there's a better way to phrase the intention of 'Any subproject that does not contain 3 members of the PMC, lacks sufficient oversight.'. probably a bit too strong - phrased in this way it could become a stick for our own backs. maybe what's important is that when the number of active pmc members who are committers in a subproject falls below three then the supervision from the pmc needs to change from passive to active. - robert On 5 Aug 2004, at 21:01, Henri Yandell wrote: I'd like to go ahead and update the PMC bylaws to reflect current reality: http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html (red is add, strikethrough is remove) Before I call a vote on it, I'd like to invite anyone to suggest other essential information that should be in there, or major cockups I've made with what is in there. I plan to call a vote on it on Tuesday 10th. I would like to update the site further in the future to incorporate the information in the wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/ but that's outside the scope of this first baby step. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: looks good :) a few minor points: 1. it'd be tidy to specify the voting process required to change the bylaws Done. 2. it would probably be a good idea to specify some basic, default rules about decision taking on the pmc (votes, quorums, casting vote?) in the bylaws. Included with the previous section. Just to underline something; I'm in no way pushing anything new on the PMC with the voting section, this is exactly how (I think) it works currently. I plan to use exactly this voting style for the vote I'll call on Tuesday (community willing). 3. it'd probably be a good idea to refer to another document containing voting guidelines which could be changed more frequently without board approval. I can't see anything suggesting we need to get the board's approval; skimming the ASF bylaws it looks more like we change things and the board have the right to kick us out if we screw up. I'll find out for sure. 4. maybe there's a better way to phrase the intention of 'Any subproject that does not contain 3 members of the PMC, lacks sufficient oversight.'. probably a bit too strong - phrased in this way it could become a stick for our own backs. maybe what's important is that when the number of active pmc members who are committers in a subproject falls below three then the supervision from the pmc needs to change from passive to active. Dunno, I like the strong part; makes it very simple. If a subproject lacks 3 PMC members, it lacks the numbers needed to vote on issues pertaining to the subproject at the project level. I'm happy to add an extra part to this: lacks sufficient oversight and the PMC will need to take steps to resolve this. How does that feel? Hen On 5 Aug 2004, at 21:01, Henri Yandell wrote: I'd like to go ahead and update the PMC bylaws to reflect current reality: http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html (red is add, strikethrough is remove) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
I'm not sure I follow this statement: Non-binary voting currently relies on consensus; such as voting in a new chairman. Can one veto a new chairman? Because -1 == veto seems to be the conventional meaning of consensus around here. Also, we may want to reference or crib bits of http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html, especially with respect to what you've labeled binary voting - Rod On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Henri Yandell wrote: I'd like to go ahead and update the PMC bylaws to reflect current reality: http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html (red is add, strikethrough is remove) Before I call a vote on it, I'd like to invite anyone to suggest other essential information that should be in there, or major cockups I've made with what is in there. I plan to call a vote on it on Tuesday 10th. I would like to update the site further in the future to incorporate the information in the wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/ but that's outside the scope of this first baby step. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
Also, do we need to limit PMC membership to committers as a matter of policy? I suggest simply Individuals are nominated for the PMC... or something like that. - Rod On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Rodney Waldhoff wrote: I'm not sure I follow this statement: Non-binary voting currently relies on consensus; such as voting in a new chairman. Can one veto a new chairman? Because -1 == veto seems to be the conventional meaning of consensus around here. Also, we may want to reference or crib bits of http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html, especially with respect to what you've labeled binary voting - Rod On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Henri Yandell wrote: I'd like to go ahead and update the PMC bylaws to reflect current reality: http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html (red is add, strikethrough is remove) Before I call a vote on it, I'd like to invite anyone to suggest other essential information that should be in there, or major cockups I've made with what is in there. I plan to call a vote on it on Tuesday 10th. I would like to update the site further in the future to incorporate the information in the wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/ but that's outside the scope of this first baby step. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
Interestingly, the ASF bylaws seem to imply that PMCs are only for members and officers of the ASF. I may be mis-interpreting: Project Management Committees consisting of at least one officer of the corporation, who shall be designated chairman of such committee, and may include one or more other members of the corporation. However, the aim for this modification is to bring it in line with reality and not future plans and we've never had a PMC member who was not a committer. Every (loose) description I've seen of a PMC describes it as the active committers to a project. So I'd like to stay with committers if possible. Hen On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Rodney Waldhoff wrote: Also, do we need to limit PMC membership to committers as a matter of policy? I suggest simply Individuals are nominated for the PMC... or something like that. - Rod On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Rodney Waldhoff wrote: I'm not sure I follow this statement: Non-binary voting currently relies on consensus; such as voting in a new chairman. Can one veto a new chairman? Because -1 == veto seems to be the conventional meaning of consensus around here. Also, we may want to reference or crib bits of http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html, especially with respect to what you've labeled binary voting - Rod On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Henri Yandell wrote: I'd like to go ahead and update the PMC bylaws to reflect current reality: http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html (red is add, strikethrough is remove) Before I call a vote on it, I'd like to invite anyone to suggest other essential information that should be in there, or major cockups I've made with what is in there. I plan to call a vote on it on Tuesday 10th. I would like to update the site further in the future to incorporate the information in the wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/ but that's outside the scope of this first baby step. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
Ah, good point. I chose a bad word :) Will change 'consensus' to 'community agreement'. Namely, there is no hard and fast rule, we just work to an agreement. I should also change voting in a new chairman to voting on the recommendation of a chair to the board. I'll also look at decisions.html and bring my text closer to its language. Hen On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Rodney Waldhoff wrote: I'm not sure I follow this statement: Non-binary voting currently relies on consensus; such as voting in a new chairman. Can one veto a new chairman? Because -1 == veto seems to be the conventional meaning of consensus around here. Also, we may want to reference or crib bits of http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html, especially with respect to what you've labeled binary voting - Rod On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Henri Yandell wrote: I'd like to go ahead and update the PMC bylaws to reflect current reality: http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html (red is add, strikethrough is remove) Before I call a vote on it, I'd like to invite anyone to suggest other essential information that should be in there, or major cockups I've made with what is in there. I plan to call a vote on it on Tuesday 10th. I would like to update the site further in the future to incorporate the information in the wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/ but that's outside the scope of this first baby step. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
Okay, think I've responded to your points. Let me know if I've failed. Going to lay on the emphasis again that this is aimed to represent the current situation, rather than design a new one. Thus we have two types of majority approval in existence, 51% success and 75% success. Mentioning as I'm sure the cracks in the beauty of the current setup is as obvious to all as it is to me. Once we've described the current situation, we can then move to simplify it. Hen On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Henri Yandell wrote: Ah, good point. I chose a bad word :) Will change 'consensus' to 'community agreement'. Namely, there is no hard and fast rule, we just work to an agreement. I should also change voting in a new chairman to voting on the recommendation of a chair to the board. I'll also look at decisions.html and bring my text closer to its language. Hen On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Rodney Waldhoff wrote: I'm not sure I follow this statement: Non-binary voting currently relies on consensus; such as voting in a new chairman. Can one veto a new chairman? Because -1 == veto seems to be the conventional meaning of consensus around here. Also, we may want to reference or crib bits of http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html, especially with respect to what you've labeled binary voting - Rod On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Henri Yandell wrote: I'd like to go ahead and update the PMC bylaws to reflect current reality: http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html (red is add, strikethrough is remove) Before I call a vote on it, I'd like to invite anyone to suggest other essential information that should be in there, or major cockups I've made with what is in there. I plan to call a vote on it on Tuesday 10th. I would like to update the site further in the future to incorporate the information in the wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/ but that's outside the scope of this first baby step. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating the PMC bylaws
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Henri Yandell wrote: On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: 3. it'd probably be a good idea to refer to another document containing voting guidelines which could be changed more frequently without board approval. I can't see anything suggesting we need to get the board's approval; skimming the ASF bylaws it looks more like we change things and the board have the right to kick us out if we screw up. I'll find out for sure. Just following up on this for those who didn't see the Cc to the PMC list. Greg responded that we don't need to get approval from the board, just to let them know of major changes in the quarterly report. - We also have enough board members on this list I suspect, that it's not going to surprise them in the quarterly. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Updating the PMC bylaws
Interestingly, the ASF bylaws seem to imply that PMCs are only for members and officers of the ASF. I may be mis-interpreting: Project Management Committees consisting of at least one officer of the corporation, who shall be designated chairman of such committee, and may include one or more other members of the corporation. I don't see anything that excludes non-members. I guess it is all in how you interpret the last clause. I interpret it as weak, as opposed to the strong statement made about the PMC Chair's authority. Every (loose) description I've seen of a PMC describes it as the active committers to a project. It can be whatever you need, but it should be (IMO) *at least* the active committers. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
