Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <47A22791.4060403@dubioso.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:54:57 +0100
From: Roland Weber <ossfwot@dubioso.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071204 SeaMonkey/1.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Multiple hats for members wrt a podling
References: <991035.62957.qm@web55114.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <991035.62957.qm@web55114.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Matt,

> I'm looking for general feedback about the group's
> perception of incubated projects and the number of
> roles that may be assumed by a foundation member in
> one.  Can I view RAT as an example that it would be
> considered kosher for a member to be both champion of
> and an initial committer on a given proposal?  And in
> contrast, that it _would_ be considered a conflict of
> interest/logistical impossibility for a committer to
> be a mentor?

I don't see why a champion or mentor shouldn't be
allowed to be a committer. And if they are already
working on the project by the time it enters
incubation, why should they not be on the initial
list of committers?
[1] mentions that mentors must earn committership
even though they are given karma for administration
purposes. It also mentions that mentors can be on the
initial list of committers, but are not required to.
Maybe it would feel a bit queer if a mentor voted
him- or herself in as a committer, but even then it
would take other binding votes.

cheers,
  Roland

[1]
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Committers

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org