attic-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: Write access to attic SVN website files
Date Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:40:28 GMT
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:26 AM, sebb <> wrote:
> On 15 August 2012 07:49, Henri Yandell <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, sebb <> wrote:
>>> On 12 August 2012 18:16, Henri Yandell <> wrote:
>>>> Ambivalent :)
>>>> I do strongly believe that attic should equal attic-pmc. ie) there's
>>>> no real issue with the current setup as you should be on the PMC (so
>>>> should Henning).
>>> There are two disadvantages to this:
>>> - it forces potential editors to join the PMC; they then need to
>> Pretty minor. They are effectively joining the PMC if they want to
>> engage in CTR anyway, especially in this 'project'.
> That's not true of other projects I'm on (Commons, JMeter, HC).
> CTR is allowed to project members; it's not reserved to PMC members.
> Where RTC is required it normally applies to PMC as well.

Yeah, lack of explanation on my part. In this particular project the
act of committing is acting on behalf of the PMC - there's a lot less
'normal' role. The main one is if a member of a retiring project
writes the project page, and that's been easy to put as content in

In a general project, anyone doing the R part of CTR is acting like a
PMC member (personal opinion, I don't expect it to be shared :) ).

>>> subscribe to private@attic
>> Low volume list, and I don't see that it should be required :)
> Then one is not participating fully as a PMC member.

Yup, but there's no requirement on 'fully'. It's a fallacy to assume
that being subscribed to a list implies people participate, for a lot
of people on a PMC it means they send that email to a folder they've
not looked at for a year. Same for members@.

>>> - updating the PMC requires a vote and a board ACK
>> Fair point on the 72h delay being a pain the first time.
>>> An alternative might be to permit @members (or even @committers) to
>>> edit the Attic site.
>> +1.
> Was that for @members?
> Or @committers?

Start with what we need and go with @members. Move to @committers if a
committer wants access.

>> I'd love to go further and declare all of @members to be on the PMC
>> (and not require subscription).
> Not sure why that would be a helpful.
> What is the point of being on a PMC unless one participates - which
> IMO requires following private@ ?

Being on a PMC means ones' opinion is binding. It doesn't mean you
have to participate. This would declare all members to have binding

> Also PMCs are a legal structure; not sure it would be possible to
> bypass the vote/board ACK.

It would fit. There's nothing in the bylaws about voting or ACKing. We
could either create a "Member's committee" as a new notion that would
fit under section 5.9, or could just be a PMC under the existing


As an aside, reading the PMC bylaws is interesting as they don't match
how we do things today:

a) It's strongly implied that only members may be on a PMC:
"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".

b) This is a weird, but basically pointless statement: "each member of
a Project Management Committee shall serve on such committee for a
period of one year or until his or her successor is elected and
qualified or until his or her earlier resignation or removal". You can
see why Jakarta's early PMC acted more like a board.

c) It says that only the board may remove someone from a committee,
but doesn't really define who is responsible for adding to a

Apologies for the off topic aside, it felt interesting :)


View raw message