On 23.12.2005, at 16:57, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: ...I think that there's little downside to this. A check on the Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a way they disagreed with. And the board has to answer to the membership.I believe that there is *major* downside to having the Incubator PMC second-guess the decisions of other PMCs.
+1.
If someone doesn't like the decision of a PMC, they shouldn't be able to use the Inucbator PMC as cover for their attacks. People who don't like what's going on in that PMC should confront that PMC directly. If theydon't like what's going on in that PMC and have tried to redress their grievances directly, they can go to the Board.
+1.
...We need to actually increase our technical diversity here - we have no real Ruby-oriented communities, nor any coherent .NET identity, and I think that's going to hurt us in the long run.That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous. The foundationshould go where our PMCs and our members want. -- justin
I agree that it is very dangerous talking about limits ab initio - but on the other hand I think it is very important to talk about growth. I'm not sure what the outcome of this discussion will bring, but I think we have seen enough concerns that it at least warrants a discussion (not conclusions!).
Maybe we find out it is enough to more efficently control PR activities or to require two or more mentors or ... I don't know but I'd like to explore the possibilities.
(I've written about all the mentioned concerns on members@ but unfortunately nobody picked up the list so far.)
Cheers, Erik
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
