www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: What kind of oversight Is required for a release?
Date Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:53:36 GMT
On Nov 14, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> I do not believe that this is a relative matter.  As I understand it, 
>> the
>> requirement is for PMC votes, and projects that don't do that are 
>> misguided
>> and not in accord with the ASF's structure.  Committers have no 
>> standing in
>> our bylaws; only PMC members have standing.  Which is one reason why 
>> Roy has
>> said that any Committer who is not a PMC member should be asking why 
>> not,
>> and wanting to be.
> So why don't we just merge the concept of Committer and PMC member? If
> Committers should be PMC members, why not just change our processes so
> this is always the case?

Because committer is simply the name we use for people who have
write access to cvs/subversion.  It does not always mean they have
a right to vote on project decisions.  Most times, but not always.
PMC, in contrast, means people whose vote matters.  If a project has
committers who think they have a binding vote but are not on the PMC,
then one or the other needs to be fixed.

The ONLY reason we have PMCs is to formally track who is managing
a project and making decisions on behalf of the ASF.  If somebody
outside the PMC is making decisions, then oversight has failed.


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not 
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions 
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for 
official ASF policies and documents. 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message