Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
If the aim of the PMC is to house a vast majority of committers, and if the role of a PMC member is simply to follow some guidelines and regulate development, I don't see the distinction between a PMC member and a committer. If the PMC membership requires legal and governing skills, I am not sure the PMC can attain vast majority. Is there a legal binding between a member and Jakarta/Apache that does not exist between a committer and Apache?
Yep. There is very little legal binding between a committer and Apache, apart from the legal fact that the committer is donating code to Apache.
I am sorry if I am being naive, but can it not be enforced that a committer should also be bound the way a member is? That way the responsibilities are borne by every committer and we could have a very small team of members for governance.
An Apache Member is a part of the Apache organisation, while a PMC member is recognised by the Apache organisation as being responsible for that TLP. There's no need for them to be an Apache Member however.
[IANAL etc, this is how I see it from descriptions people have given]
I am certainly willing (and want) to share some responsibilities to help grow Jakarta but I want to be clear on the responsibilities I will be taking on as a member and if I will be eligible.
By being an active committer, you are eligible. As for what responsibilities are, attempts to define the role of a PMC member have not gone well so far but will hopefully get there.
I am sorry, I meant to say if I would qualify for the responsibilities.
Hen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
