xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott_B...@lotus.com
Subject Re: VOTE: PMC size
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:06:30 GMT

Arved Sandstrom <Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> I would propose that we simplify matters initially by not looking for a
"new
> model" PMC. We just conduct an all-committer vote that picks out maybe
4-6
> committers to sit as the "dry" version of a PMC - Scott's description of
> option A.

So, which is it, 4 or 6?  I think it should be an odd number... I like 3
but could live with 5.

> I also propose 2 standing working groups.

The concept of working groups feels a bit heavy.

>  The first is composed
>  automatically of all committers, and this is where decisions like
forming a
>  new project are made.

+1

> The second standing working group is an advisory
> group, possibly 5-10 people, and is composed of people that committers
have
> voted on (selected) from among the number of external individuals who
> nominated themselves these past few weeks.

Hmmm... you mean this group is non-committers?  Interesting concept. I'm
not sure why the general list can't serve this function well enough?

> All other functions are accommodated through the already discussed
mechanism
> of having temporary working groups. The all-committer body (standing WG)
has
> identification and management of these WGs as one of its primary
functions.
> Scott's Architectural Mgmt Council could definitely be one of these.

The AMC concept is not one of a temporary working group, but a long term
guidence institution.

-scott






Mime
View raw message