forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Date Wed, 10 May 2006 13:13:35 GMT
Gav.... wrote:
> This vote mentions both PMC Members and Committers as though they
> Are separate entities. Please remind me, I thought it was decided
> (unanimously amongst those present) that there was no longer a
> Distinction , you can not be a committer without being also a
> PMC Member. I did query the statement in /guidelines.html which
> Reads :-
> " ... However, there may be extraordinary cases where we want limited
> work-related commit access (not also a PMC member)... "
> IIRC the reply was that this is no longer the case.

That is still the case. It is possible that an individual requests that 
they are not part of the PMC for personal reasons.

We also have the above sentence to allow us to have provision should an 
"extraordinary case" emerge. But we have never had such a case.

> If this stands then there is more that needs doing to clarify this new
> Stance in electing Devs to become PMC Members (becoming committers as
> A consequence and vice-versa). 
> Such as :-
> Update the Meritocracy of Roles and Responsibilities to remove
> Committer as though it was a separate role from PMC Member.

See above.

> Where it is sometimes mentioned 'PMC Member' and sometimes
> Mentioned 'Committer' needs to be decided if using just
> One of these terms throughout the documentation to avoid
> Confusion.

The duties of a PMC member are different from those of a committer. Even 
if they are the same person, therefore the disinction is sometimes an 
important one.


View raw message