Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, October 25, 2002 12:58 PM +0200 Stephen McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PMC's have some things to dictate - license policy - voting policy - security policy - duspute resolution mechanisms. The PMC could choose to use the Jakata policies with would be a good starting point.
The one thing I can be absolutely sure of is that this PMC will not be involved in disputes about code *ever*. (No, I don't speak for the entire PMC.) There will be no 'veto override' and 'veto of last resort' or any other such nonsense. If dueling vetos exist, I couldn't care less what the PMC says - it's the job of the committers (and the relevant community) to duke it out.
I understand where your comming from and in 99.9% of the cases I think your right. However, following classic Jakarta rules provides for deadlocks withing which a hell of a lot of strees can be placed on a community. Rules provide structure and a framework that enable rolution of issues without resorting personal duke-it-out (and the associated stress) ... I guess I see rules much more like the lines on a soccer field - you know where your can go - you know what expected, whats' not expected - makes for civilized communities :-)
Whenever two committers get in a fight, they shouldn't be running to 'Mommy PMC' to solve their problems. Namely because both of them will probably be on the PMC anyway. So, it's not going to be that productive.
That's the negative way to look at a PMC - but its a majority view - maybe it should be renamed to PECker "Project Avangilization Club" - and the members are there to make you sucessfull. Yes I know a dozen people and going to say no-way - but hey - everyone is allowed an opinion !
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
