Now that I understood that no action by or within the PMC is required, I'm perfectly fine with the new procedure.
So a non-binding +1 from me. Cheers, Tammo On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:35, Ulrich Stärk <u...@spielviel.de> wrote: > Do we have a concensus here? If so we will prepare a mail to pmc@ explaining > the process. > > Uli > > On 19.03.2012 10:08, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 19 March 2012 08:42, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Nóirín Pluincéid <noi...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> ...Mentors should have the backing of the PMC responsible for the project >>>> their student is working on - because we've promised that to Google, and >>>> because we need to know that if the mentor disappears, the PMC will step >>>> in.... >>> +1, IMO we just need the PMC to say "we are ok with this GSoC project >>> happening with this mentor". >>> >>> Having the mentor CC their PMC list when they inform code-awards of >>> their intention to mentor, and someone from the PMC ack that, is not >>> much work and I think it's sufficient. >> +1 >> >> The tiny bit of extra work for PMCs significantly reduces admin work >> if we have an issue like last year (I not none of the people who >> worked to resolve the issue last year are against this idea ;-) >> >> PMCs are supposed to provide oversight for their projects not anyone else. >> >> Ross >> >> -- Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de
