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 Wed, 04 Dec 2002 04:48:44 GMT
Giacomo Pati wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
<snip/>
> 
> How would you define 'active committer'?
> By CVS commit rates?
> By RTs?
> By mail posts/replies?
> 
> ATM I don't fall in none of these categories but still like to
> be in the PMC.

Some time ago we used to have a committers list at cocoon/who.html
which was just one long list of all committers. Then cocoon-dev
decided to categorise that into three types of committer "active",
"in-active" and "emeritus".

Actually, i do not want to define "committer categories" when we
are talking about PMC membership. I want all committers to be
invited. This is the resolution that we have arrived at elsewhere
in this thread.

> > So, we need to define very carefully what constitutes a PMC
> > member and how/when PMC members are considered to be retired.
> > We must get this whole PMC setup correct from the beginning.
> 
> I have the impression you'd like to exclude volunteers if they
> don't have
> a measurable weight (which ever this might be)? Why so, or did I
> misunderstud your concerns by 'We must get this whole PMC setup
> correct from the beginning'?

You did mis-understand my concerns. Actually, i do want to ensure
that no-one is ever excluded, either now or in the future. The
previous proposal to only have "active committers" on the PMC,
was what i was disputing.

If we do not clearly define what constitutes PMC membership, then
we risk confusion later.

--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