Dan Diephouse wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am pretty philosophically against making every committer PPMC
members.
I don't agree at all. If they contribute code, they merit a say in
the
direction of the project.
Are you reading Dan's statement as independent or dependent upon time?
I
read it as an objection to mandated concurrency. Over time, your view
should be the dominant one, as each Committer becomes a (P)PMC member.
as for the one line that you retained: I view Dan's perspective as
being independent of time - that is, committers should never equal
the PMC - I view that as extremely unhealthy.
If I had read it as you do, I would agree with you. I read it as
suggestive
of a process over time, and that at any snapshot in time, the body of
Committers might not be entirely present in the PPMC.
I did in fact mean it as dependent on time. And specifically I meant
at the beginning of incubation. I don't think every committer should
be on the PPMC from the outset. Every committer may be on the PPMC at
graduation, and this is encouraged, but only after they are explicitly
voted on by the existing PPMC members. Now the PPMC may just chose to
vote on specific individuals or everyone at once, its up to them. I
would however encourage only voting people in after they an
appropriate level of committment and involvement with the project.
One reason I feel this way is that I think protect's Apache's interests.
Lets say that hypothetically, more people are put on a proposal than
should be. If the PPMC members are elected after showing their
committment to the long term health of the project, as opposed to all
committers being added at the outset of the project, I believe this
gives a better chance for correction. If I end up on the CXF (P)PMC I
have every intention of starting a vote which removes any committers who
have not contributed anything during incubation or significantly in the
past. I hope I don't have to do that, but it doesn't seem fair that
they would graduate as part of the project and have as much say as those
who have shown their committment. If someone wants to get involved
later, they can always contribute and get voted back in. I think this
gives people a slightly lower barrier to get involved, which seems
befitting to incubation and starting of a project, but also provides
corrective measures in case there are problems.
Cheers,
- Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
