forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [DRAFT] Forrest Project Guidelines
Date Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:13:25 GMT
Dave Brondsema wrote:
> Currently we have committers who have chosen not to be part of the PMC.
> And new committers may not want to oversee the project, but still be
> long-term contributors.  Are we going to require them to be in the PMC?


Along with privileges come obligations. Nobody wants to "manage" a 
project, but we must. It's too easy to be able basically to do all a PMC 
member does and not have to take the shit when it comes.

> I think there is a place for Committers who are not Project Management
> Committers.  Although for legal protection, I think it is highly advisable
> for committers to join the PMC.  Perhaps they could just be inactive in
> the PM part.

It's not about "it's better", it's simply about how it should be.
The votes are legally binding only if cast by PMC members.

The current "committers" that do not want to join the PMC will simply 
remain as developers with commit access, but will not be able to vote 
(although participating and expressing opinions is highly welcome).

IOW, if someone wants to have my same saying, he must take the 
responsibilities I take too.

Search the term "committer" here, in our Foundation bylaws, and you will 
not find one:

>>>If he is not on the PMC, he has no legal oversight obbligation.
>>>All non PMC member that have commit access are thus in the developers'

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message