forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: Community health
Date Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:37:11 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Gav.... wrote:
> This has been discussed many times (see archives). The summary is that 
> it is not seen as a good idea. The only reason for the PMC is to have a 
> private place to discuss issues that cannot be discussed in public, for 
> example, security issues.

One minor correction. Ross means the pmc@ mailing list
(which should be called private@). The role of the
PMC itself:
and the linked references.

> PMC membership does not, generally, requrie 
> any more commitment than being a committer. Therefore, having a second 
> level of committership will not really change the situation. Either 
> someone has the time/inclination to apply patches or they do not - not 
> being in the PMC will not change that.
> ...
> >Ah well, something to think about anyway. And yes, I have seen previous 
> >discussions about this in the past and remember them well. Just a timely 
> >reminder :)
> If there is any reason to change past decisions we need to hear them. 
> Otherwise we are ust wasting time going over old gound. In other words, 
> is there anything in the past discussions that you feel is no longer 
> appropriate to this decision?

The main discussion for this is in the pmc@ private
archives following our creation of the project.
The reason that it was on the private list is that
we formulated the policy during the voting for the
first new committers.

Since then there is also some in the dev@ archives
and at

We want to avoid classes of committers, either they
are committed or not committed.

Note that this aspect is different at other projects.
Some have committer=PMC member, others do not, and each
has different ways of creating new PMC members.


View raw message