cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@indexgeo.com.au>
Subject Re: [proposal] board resolution version 1.1
Date Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:25:02 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> [...]
> > When we
> > need to introduce new people to PMC membership and retire
> > old ones, we need a consistent definition of "PMC membership".
> 
> Just my 2c, but IMHO anyone that partecipates actively on the list with 
> discussions, suggestion and social engineering is "active".
> 
> Probably it's the "committer" part that is confusing, since it's more 
> about "committable", ie who has the right to commit.
> 
> As for retirement and taking new ones, ATM I don't see a problem in 
> having them deemed inactive if they do not partecipate for some time, 
> having "partecipate" a quite wide meaning.
> 
> For example, Ross Gardler has not really committed bif stuff since some 
> time now on Krysalis, but I honestly do consider him "active", since he 
> has been really helping with suggestions, tips, discussions and so on. I 
> would never retire someone like him :-)
> 
> I'll leave the definition of the details to others though, these are 
> just my two pennies.

All of us need to help to define the details.
These formative stages of the PMC are vital.

Earlier in this thread i alerted the list to what i see
as a major flaw. I think that the answer is simple:
The initial PMC is formed from "all committers" - the
whole list at xml-cocoon2/who.xml no matter what their
status. They can take themselves off the PMC if they
wish. No distinction is the best way.

--David



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message