forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PMC] change the procedure for new committers
Date Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:13:33 GMT
On 8/17/05, Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org> wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> 
> > It would be better if we could announce them to dev@ list
> > at step 3 and just say that there are more procedural steps
> > which will take some time.
> 
> +1
> 
> >
> > However there are two potential problems there:
> >
> > What if the new person refused to submit the CLA?
> > I cannot see why - it doesn't take away any of
> > their rights.
> 
> If someone does refuse then that would lead to an interesting and
> valuable onlist discussion. Although I agree, I don't think anyone ever
> would.

One reason I could see is that they may not be their rights to assign
and they may not look into it until after they accept the
committer/pmc offer.  For example, I had my corporate legal review the
CLA *after* I accepted the offer to become a committer.  In my case,
the way contracts are written, both my customer and company jointly
own the IP for my work on contract so both have to agree to it.  Since
I've yet to get anyone to pay me to do Forrest-related work;) it's not
yet an issue for me.  One could argue that this should be looked into
before accepting and that sounds reasonable, it just didn't happen in
my case.

> > What if the board denied them being a PMC member?
> > I cannot see why they would, but that procedural step
> > still needs to happen.
> 
> As I understand it (based on a later mail of yours in this thread) this
> is a legal step. I suppose there may be a situation in which the board
> "now something we don't" about an individual and deny them membership.
> Again, if this were ever to happen (I doubt it would) it would be for an
> extremely good reason. Having the denial in public would probably be an
> advantage in this instance too (although I doubt we would discuss the
> reasons for it, simply make a statement).
> 
> > In those cases we would need to retract our statements
> > to the dev list. I am happy to live with the consequences
> > of that, so i propose to change our procedural docs to
> > do the dev announcement after step 3. If anyone has
> > issues then speak up, otherwise i will just do it.
> 
> +1
> 
> Ross
>

Mime
View raw message