Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Anthony
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 9:33 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> for various reasons we missed a few Pivotal folks >> when submitting a Geode proposal. There's nothing >> controversial about them -- just an honest mistake. >> They are all currently working on the project and >> contributed quite a bit in the past. In short, they have >> as much a claim in being a project committer as >> all the other folks who were on the proposal. >> >> I propose that we add them to the project as committers >> since they should've been on the proposal to begin with: >> * Chloe Jackson >> * Manuel David >> * Rajesh Kumar >> * Rishitesh Mishra >> * Shankar Hundekar >> >> This majority vote is open for at least 72 hours and lazy consensus >> applies. >> > > No objection to adding them. > > I'm concerned that we begin differentiating them from PPMC members, > especially > as we start adding non-Pivotal creators to the committer roster. Diversity > in the > project is already an important issue, and segregating PPMC from committers > is probably premature. > > I'd support this list for commit if it were accompanied by nominations to > PPMC, > the same for all other prospective committers. The time to identify PMC vs. > Committers would come at the end of graduation, as podling contributors > are identified and carried over, and those who choose to be inactive are > dropped, at least for the time being, from the final PMC.
