+1 On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:37 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > > > > > If you hold a public vote to make them committers, they are not on the > > PPMC. > > If you hold a private vote, likewise. If you hold a vote to make them > > committers > > as well as PPMC members, and send the new list of PPMC members to the > > IPMC as lazy concensus of the roster change, then they become both. I'd > > like > > to see that happen. These words matter in voting, and we might as well > > get > > them right every time a new committer and/or [P]PMC member is suggested. > > > > [I realize this contradicts my early comments about treating people-votes, > any > committee-change vote with active consensus and unanimity. The IPMC or the > Board (for incubating and top-level projects, respectively) do not pretend > to know > all of the committers to our project, unlike the project's committee > members, > and those names are brought up for passive approval entirely only for > reporting > and a bit extra scrutiny. They realistically won't be contradicted unless > someone > has some seriously negative karma that the IPMC or Board are aware of, but > the > IPMC and Board aren't expected to '+1' each person they don't know of.] >
