On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I also don't think that the PMC should set guidelines on a release > (other than 3 binding +1s) or on coding style or on build systems. > Leave that up to the committers. The PMCs job should be to stay the > heck out of the way of the committers. If the committers need help, > they can ask the PMC for guidance, but let's not have a PMC that > dictates from upon high. I'm assuming other things would exist. A project must have a PROPOSAL.html. A project must maintain a STATUS.html. A release must have a release manager. That's all that springs to mind, would hope it's documented at J-C somewhere :) > > Note that as a committer I have very rigid requirements for what a > release is, what coding style, and what build system to use. But, I > don't believe the PMC should dictate to *me* what tools I use. (One > reason I'm against using Ant commons-wide - it sucks for C code which > is about all I care about.) -- justin Sounds good. You'd have far more effort trying to convince the maven/centipede/ant fans to settle on one tool. So the tool aspect is something J-C wouldn't be able to demand, so seems unlikely that A-C would be able to. Hen
