Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their
> PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others,
> nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :)
Right, but there is clearly a difference of opinion, so which part of "the
Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification" needs
further explanation? ;-)
> The idea that PMCs should be able to determine what
> projects are to be folded into the ASF is a good one,
> and one that we've always held to, but it's also the
> one that resulted in the problems with Jakarta
> and the lack of oversight involved with them.
And so on that basis, an interpretation that permits PMCs to submit projects
for Incubation, and still provides for the Incubator PMC to arbitrate on
exit, makes sense.
> it's not the fact that other PMCs should decide what
> gets added in which is the issue, is that we have
> the required checks and balances in place to
> avoid another Jakarta.
Agreed. And that is only one of the concerns that we need to be aware of.
> Going under the assumption that there "should" be some
> sort of entity which "regulates" the influx of new
> projects within the ASF, I submit that the Incubator
> is the best such entity currently in existence (other
> than the board itself). That's all ;)
Agreed, and we are the authority on what leaves the Incubator. And since we
have traditionally held that any ASF Member can join the Incubator PMC, that
provides the ASF Membership with a lot of say in what happens, should they
choose to become active here.
But this still leaves open WHEN that authority comes into play: on entrance
to the Incubator, or on exit.
On the other hand, since exit may include Incubation failure ... hmmm ... I
suppose that the Incubator PMC could vote to fail a project, even if it
can't vote on whether or not to accept it.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
