forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Johan Kok <j...@messianic.dyndns.org>
Subject Request: Split development and user mailling list
Date Wed, 12 May 2004 10:28:09 GMT
While on these kind of subjects  --- could we also look at the 
possibility to split the user and development mailling lists, as the 
mail traffic has increased dramatically over the past few months.

Johan Kok

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

> David Crossley wrote:
> ...
>
>> There are different types of issues that would require voting ...
>>
>> A) Day-to-day technical issues with the current source repository
>> and with proposed new additions.
>>
>> B) The election of new committers.
>>
>> C) PMC may step in to take control of something that they see
>> as a major issue,
>> e.g. Major change of direction for the project.
>> e.g. Licensing issues.
>>
>> D) Mundane PMC matters,
>> e.g. Acceptance of the proposed "Project Guidelines" document.
>> e.g. Deciding the method of composition of the PMC.
>> e.g. Deciding how voting will be done.
>>
>> I presume that A and B are voted by the Committers, just as we
>> do now: if there are no -1 then go ahead. Whereas C and D are
>> new things and the method of voting for them would need to be
>> defined during the creation of the PMC.
>
>
> The fact is that *binding* votes can "legally" (IANAL) be case only by 
> PMC members. In an occasion I have been almost flamed for this, as I 
> said that -horror- committers can cast binding votes at Jakarta. In 
> fact there is nothing in our foundation bylaws that says this, it 
> talks about PMCs.
>
>>> Having committers that are not PMC members would be a new thing to 
>>> do, and we will have to discuss if/how to do it.
>>
>>
>> It is not that new - this is the situation at Cocoon. All committers
>> can *choose* whether to be on the PMC. For Forrest we would need to
>> decide how our PMC will be composed.
>
>
> As done for Gump, I'd say that initially every Forrest committer can 
> decide to add his name to the proposal file. If they are active, they 
> won't fail to do it.
>
> For the future, I would like to see something that is different from 
> the way Cocoon handles stuff. I mean, I would like to see all 
> long-standing committers be on the PMC, nobody excluded, and the PMC 
> members be the only one able to cast binding votes. Mind me, I said 
> the "PMC members", not "on the PMC private list".
>
> So effectively we would have PMC==(committers as usually known)
>
> The difference is that we could have people with commit access that 
> are not on the PMC, and that can't cast binding votes. This would be 
> an new figure, that Cocoon does not have. Rationale? If we need help 
> on an issue, and someone wants to help in SVN, we can give him partial 
> access to the repository and monitor his work *without* having to 
> bring him on the wagon with other longtime committers. I had posted a 
> mail about this some time ago IIRC.
>


Mime
View raw message