+1 to both of these points from Greg. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 12:05 PM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Cc: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> Subject: Re: my pTLP view >On Jan 23, 2015 8:53 AM, "jan i" <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On 23 January 2015 at 14:42, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >... >> >> I agree with everything else you write, but the demand for "only ASF >> Members" seems very hard. If I come to ASF with a community and a >>project, >> I really would feel unhappy being cut out of the loop (PMC cares about >>the >> community, not the committers following our role definition). >> >> Would it not be possible to write "The initial PMC must be comprised of >> more than 50% ASF Members", or something similar. > >It would be a Resolution put before the Board. So the initial mix can be >whatever you can get away with. :-) > >As a Director, I'd look for 100%. But with some rationale, one or two >others could be fine. > >> If this came to vote, I would give it a -1, because we cannot and should >> not "overrule" an existing community, but merely guide them. > >The community is who agreed on the approach and placed it before the >Board, >for pTLP status. And only the Board would be voting on that Resolution. > >Cheers, >-g
