Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 47093 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2006 10:09:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Oct 2006 10:09:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 7971 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2006 10:09:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 7771 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2006 10:09:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 7756 invoked by uid 99); 4 Oct 2006 10:09:23 -0000 Received: from idunn.apache.osuosl.org (HELO idunn.apache.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.84) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:09:23 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=5.0 tests=NO_DNS_FOR_FROM Received: from [202.164.195.42] ([202.164.195.42:25814] helo=cerberus.wingsofhermes.org) by idunn.apache.osuosl.org (ecelerity 2.1.1.8 r(12930)) with ESMTP id 10/63-00170-A3883254 for ; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:09:03 -0700 Received: (qmail 7165 invoked by uid 1008); 4 Oct 2006 10:08:07 -0000 Received: from 192.168.3.13 by cerberus.wingsofhermes.org (envelope-from , uid 1002) with qmail-scanner-1.25 (clamdscan: 0.88/1246. spamassassin: 3.0.4. Clear:RC:1(192.168.3.13):. Processed in 0.127873 secs); 04 Oct 2006 10:08:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (192.168.3.13) by 0 with SMTP; 4 Oct 2006 10:08:06 -0000 Message-ID: <45238806.60704@wingsofhermes.org> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:08:06 +1000 From: Berin Lautenbach User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0640-1, 03/10/2006), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Noel J. Bergman wrote: >>- We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of >>community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is >>allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore. Even worse, we now >>don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want to >>create an arbitrary bureaucratic beast (the PPMC) that will make that >>decision for them. > > > That accusation is false, misleading and insulting. The Mentors are people > who both the PMC and incoming community have generally agreed will mentor > the project. Not some "arbitrary bureaucratic beast", a comment that I > consider demeaning to the ASF as a whole, by the way, since the PMC is > fundamental to ASF process. And I consider it insulting to have my paragraph quoted back without putting in the line that qualified what I meant. "Before anyone jumps down my throat - I like the PPMC, but it should represent the community, not (within reason) enforce a style on the community.)" If the PPMC represents the *community* then I like it. But (for me) the mentors are *not* the community of the podling. Anything that has the mentors alone making decisions - even initially - as to who is in and out is (to me) arbitrarily beuracractic. Alternatively, give the full community - as defined in the proposal - of the podling control (through the PPMC vehicle) and I think it is goodness. A good PMC represents the community of the project. A bad one dictates to the community. Surely the same is true of the PPMC? Cheers, Berin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org