In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Leif Mortenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am also a strong +1 on re-voting as well. The idea of a PMC now > sounds good, but I > too would really like to be able to see the charter and bylaws in > writing before effectively > "signing" them. To be honest, the voting process was a mechanism for the Board to get a sense of the community's support for an Avalon PMC. The final numbers and percentages and whatnot are not strictly relevant. The vote that was performed demonstrated a sufficient interest in having a PMC. Further, note that the Jakarta PMC and the Board were inclined to create the PMC. So, in essence, the only real interesting vote from the community would have been a strong opposition. Since the Board did not see that, it constructed the Avalon PMC last night. > There are several members of the Avalon community who are quite > upset with the speed > at which the vote was announces and concluded. We all have to step back > and remember > that we are all only here because we choose to be. Having several of > our ranks feel that > they were forced into a situation is not a good thing. Note that the PMC is intended to *help*, not to obstruct. As has been detailed on this list, there are quite a few reasons for a PMC to exist, not the least of which is its role in providing ASF oversight of the project. The ASF cannot help to indemnify the committers unless we can strongly demonstrate that oversight. >... > Since the vote, I have come to understand what the PMC will entail. > But the information > is still scattered across several posts over the last week. I agree We're hoping that the Incubator will get a lot of this information detailed -- that it will be the group to "teach" us all about what it means to be a member, to be part of the PMC, to be a committer, or any of the other roles here at the ASF. Cheers, -g -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
