Hi Matt,The last official act of the PPMC is to graduate the project from the incubator. By that time, it should have learned how to govern itself.
While there is no policy, I believe that graduation is a good time to take stock of the PPMC membership and committers and decide who will be there after graduation.
I'd suggest you have the discussion about the future composition of the PMC as a group, using the dev list as a vehicle. You might find out that there are committers who would like to take part in the PMC.
more specific comments below... On Apr 3, 2007, at 8:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
OpenEJB is in the process of graduating from incubation. A question has come up about the composition of the PMC for a resolution that is brought the board as a request to be a TLP. Is it standard practice to take the existing PPMC forward to the board or can the project, in its discretion, suggest a PMC made up of a different group of members? For instance, the initial PPMC was made up of mentors as well as committers.
The Incubator policy says that the mentors are representatives of the sponsoring project, and if they want to fully participate in the project they have to earn it just like anyone else.
However, the composition of the proposed PMC is missing many of the committers that have been active and working on the project for sometime. Is it appropriate to include those members in the proposal or simply stay with the PPMC and build the new PMC after graduation?
It's up to the PPMC. Graduation is a good time to correct oversights that benefit the project going forward.
Craig
Thanks --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Russell DB PMC, OpenJPA PPMC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://db.apache.org/jdo
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
