Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 15673 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2004 03:21:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Jun 2004 03:21:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 58185 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jun 2004 03:21:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 58086 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jun 2004 03:21:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: general@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 58012 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jun 2004 03:21:14 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [203.12.160.101] (HELO mail5.tpgi.com.au) (203.12.160.101) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:21:12 -0700 Received: from tpg.com.au (203-219-28-108-bri-ts5-2600.tpgi.com.au [203.219.28.108]) by mail5.tpgi.com.au (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5S3KlOe017303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:20:51 +1000 Message-ID: <40DF8A35.3040009@tpg.com.au> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:02:13 +1000 From: "Peter B. West" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040124 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: XML Graphics: draft charter, draft resolution update, items to discuss References: <4C2F1577F2EF2840A9AE9EC61860C8810112257F@usseex01.amer.bea.com> In-Reply-To: <4C2F1577F2EF2840A9AE9EC61860C8810112257F@usseex01.amer.bea.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TPG-Antivirus: Passed X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Cliff Schmidt wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote on Sunday, June 27, 2004 6:28 AM: > > >>The Xerces people put all their active committers automatically into >>the >>PMC. So question number one: Should we do that, too? I don't think >>this >>is a bad idea. What do you people think about this and what are the >>arguments for and against? > > > If you're interested in another approach...in the XMLBeans vote on > the proposed resolution and PMC chair, I included an option for the > committer to choose to become part of the PMC. This meant that people > who didn't vote at all weren't part of the PMC, and that people who > didn't want to be part of the PMC could passively decline. I felt it > was important for a clearly intentional choice to take on the > responsibility of being on the PMC. This method can also serve to > naturally filter out committers who have not been very active > (unless they make a conscious act to renew their activity). Of course, > anyone missed could always be voted into the PMC at a later time, > depending on the established charter. > > Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there in case you find any > merit in that approach. Sounds good. Peter -- Peter B. West --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org