Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:Leo Simons wrote:[...]A release vote is a PMC vote, no matter how it's marked.btw, this is a PMC vote is it not?Yep.We should mark it as such I think.
It can be marked as such, but there is no gain in having to do so. Only PMC members votes are counted anyway.
And do it on the PMC list.
I disagree. There is no need for secrecy. We should not use that list if not for secrecy reasons.
There are members subscribed there that are not active here.
If it's true that Avalon PMC members are only on that list, IMNSHO this it wrong. We should have that all subscribed to the PMC should be also subscribed to the dev list.
If you want something to be considered as ratified by the PMC then the PMC have to vote on it on the PMC list - otherwise its not a PMC vote. Its not a secrecy issue - its a procedural point. If a PMC member is subscribed to the PMC list and active and attentive to PMC issues - there is nothing that states that the member must also follow day to day procedings on the dev list. Secondly, a PMC member has to right to voice a different opinion as a PMC member as compared with their role as a committer. I really does not matter if that makes sence or not - what matters is that a PMC member has responsibilites over and above a committer - and those responsibiliites may result in a different opinions.
Please don't interprit this as Steve saying he will vote different on the PMC list as compared to the committer list - all I'm saying is that if your going to do something - di it properly based on the structure that has been put in place.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
