forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Quarterly Report
Date Wed, 12 May 2004 13:21:21 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 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.

I have kept my mouth shut on this issue as I am currently very inactive 
over here, however that makes this comment particularly relevant to myself.

I, like others, have a concern about whether we have enough active 
people here at any one time to properly manage a top level project. This 
is a project that periodically goes through lean times. It seems most of 
us are making very good use of Forrest in its current form, and most of 
us have many plans for improving it, but we don't seem to be finding 
consitent time (certainly this is true forr me).

Since, under your proposal, I could could still be a committer without 
implying any additional commitment to the PMC I was happy to go along 
with things. However, if this is a new thing and not been tested 
elsewhere at Apache I think it is imperative that we examine this in 
some detail.

I suppose my real concern is, do we have enough people that do want to 
be on the PMC that will be consistently active there? If I understand 
the implications of the above quote correctly, other TLP's *requrie* 
people to be active on the PMC in order to be a committer. If we allow 
people to be committers but not PMC members will we still have enough 
active PMC members as we grow (more committers means more oversite work 
for the PMC).

Having said all that, I would like to say that I fully support a move to 
a TLP as long as the above is not an issue. For my part I intend to 
become active here again just as soon as I can, but you've heard that 
before right?


View raw message