Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DBB8D9C7 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:58:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 31123 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2012 15:58:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 31047 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2012 15:58:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 31038 invoked by uid 99); 14 Oct 2012 15:58:55 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:58:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-vc0-f175.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username robweir, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:58:55 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p1so5116899vcq.6 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:58:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.152.11 with SMTP id e11mr5340292vcw.61.1350230334228; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.157.77 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:58:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <50785359.3010400@apache.org> <1350154122.44515.YahooMailNeo@web113504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:58:54 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers From: Rob Weir To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > Sent from my tablet > On Oct 13, 2012 11:00 PM, "Kay Schenk" wrote: >> > > ?.. > >> >> It never occurred to me that any of them would have necessarily been >> interested. > > The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition > of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which > was designed to identify people with sufficient merit. I would have thought Actually, I explicitly mentioned this, and more than once, in the earlier phase of this process. -Rob > all of your active mentors have earned sufficient merit and should have > been invited to join. Furthermore, at least on mentor indicated a desire to > serve on the PMC, so there was no need for it to "occur" to anyone, it was > explicit. > > This is the first time I've seen a PPMC fail nominate its active mentors as > PMC members. There is a lesson in there for the community but it is no > longer my place to convey what I think that lesson is (since my last mail > was my last as a mentor) > > Ross