On 2018/10/10 09:04:30, kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > When it comes to responsibilities one high-level suggestion I'd make is > that core members retain decision making abilities for the 'big' decisions > where experience is required.
Written from the PMC point of view: Every individual member of the PMC is held accountable for the project to report quarterly, to comply with legal standards, to comply with brand management policies, follow press standards, address security vulnerabilities, to conduct business on public mailing lists, grow the community, to limit the use of private mailing lists. All of these account-abilities come without discretionary power over your peers who are working as individuals on mxnet. PMC members do have binding votes on releases. They do have binding votes for adding new committers and new PMC members. While in incubation there's quite a bit of help from mentors for all of the above, as soon as you leave incubation those are the main responsibilities of PMC members. (For those who want to dig deeper: http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html ) Notice how little all of these tasks have to do with coding decisions. Or to quote the link I sent earlier: "The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight. The main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and every release is the product of the community as a whole. That is key to our litigation protection mechanisms." The tl;dr; version that I (half jokingly) tell people: "You don't want to become a PMC member - it gives you access to yet another mailing list to follow and it adds a whole lot of new responsibilities." Coming from that perspective, several of the arguments I have seen exchanged so far wrt. to splitting the roles to me read like you have an understanding of those roles that is different from the above. I hope the above helps, Isabel
