incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <gary.mar...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: Charter preparation
Date Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:10:03 GMT
On 06/03/13 20:44, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Branko ─îibej <brane@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> The resolution is mostly boilerplate, but the community must decide
>> several things which have bearing on the resolution:
>>
>>    * The composition of the new PMC
>>    * The proposed PMC chairman
>>
>> For the PMC, I propose that all current committers become PMC members
>> when the project graduates. I also propose we adopt the "committer ==
>> PMC member" model after graduation, as given the number of active
>> developers, it makes little sense to maintain that artificial barrier. I
>> also propose you invite the mentors onto the PMC.
>>
>> N.B., Subversion has the concept of "partial committer", i.e., a
>> contributor with ASF committer status but whose commit rights are
>> restricted to a branch or a specific area of the code (this restriction
>> is not enforced via access control). It's IMO too early to complicate
>> matters on this project by emulating this practice.
> Yup. All sounds good.

Yes, I agree with all that.

>
>> Regarding the PMC chair, given that a TLP no longer has mentors, it's
>> usually a good idea at least initially to give the funny hat to someone
>> who has a bit more mileage with the ASF. But that's by no means a
>> requirement. All the PMC chair really does is submit reports to the board.
> I think that I just heard a nomination for Brane to be PMC chair :-P
>
> Seriously, though... this isn't much of a rule. Most VPs are not ASF
> Members. I look at them more as "liaisons", and the parameters/needs
> of that role are fairly easy to learn. So in that sense, any of the
> existing PPMC members can be a candidate.
>
>>> A quick look at the guidelines do not suggest that anything in
>>> particular needs to be restricted to the private list but I will be
>>> happy to accept advice on that.
>> I see no reason to keep anything private, except for the actual
>> invitations to the PMC, which I believe should remain private (i.e., on
>> the private list) (Greg, I'd appreciate your insight on that topic).
> I don't see anything that needs to be private right now.
> (post-graduation: yeah, "people discussions" ought to remain private;
> e.g. committer/PMC invitations)
>
> We can take all current BH committers and put them onto the PMC
> roster. Individuals can remove themselves.

In which case shall we skip the invitation to mentors, put them all on 
the PMC and let them remove themselves if they wish? Just to speed 
things along!

> If somebody has a desire to be the Chair, then I would recommend they
> self-nominate. If we get more than one, then we discuss that on
> -private.
>
> Cheers,
> -g

Well, I am prepared to take it on and, equally, I would be prepared to 
stand down if there are others who desire it more. I am not sure that 
desire is exactly the right word here anyway.

Cheers,
     Gary

Mime
View raw message