Ivelin Ivanov wrote: <snip/> > I would just like to disagree with the statement in another email that > Stefano should not be elected because he is not an active commiter.
Please do not twist my words Ivelin. I did not say that Stefano should not be elected. I pointed out that the sudden (without any discussion) concept, that PMC members be active committers, is flawed and needs careful consideration. What i was pointing out, is that Stefano (and others) will need to be removed from the "active committers" list in who.xml and then that breaks the notion that "PMC membership" equates to being an active committer. We cannot have one rule for some people and a different rule for others. > The rule of "PMC of active commiters" is valid, That is not yet decided. I, for one, am not yet happy with what constitutes Cocoon PMC membership. > however Stefano is a vital exception. > The project has grown big enough to warrent a full-time > administrative management position. > I would consider it a mistake if Stefano gets his hands on > coding too often from here on. I disagree. The PMC will need to be tweaking certain documentation in CVS. It does not take much to remain an active committer ... one change every three months. > His job of chair is to protect the interests of the project; > promote it in the industry; > work with evangelists (like Matthew) and participate in > strategic architectural discussions. I agree, the job of chair has many aspects. However, to put flaws in the rules will lead to trouble later on. When we need to introduce new people to PMC membership and retire old ones, we need a consistent definition of "PMC membership". --David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
