Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Dec 18, 2003, at 3:08 PM, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:

Ah now it all makes sense :)

May be this should be included with the CLA and then there would be no  
reason to lobby for more members, really.
We want to make sure that the PMC members are committers who understand  
the responsibility and are willing to take it.  Automatic inclusion  
doesn't do that.

geir

-Harish

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

I don't see the distinction between a PMC member and a committer.
<<grin>> You catch on quickly.  :-)  The difference is that a PMC  
member, as
a normative statement, has a binding vote on the project.  By allowing
someone to become a Committer, you allow direct contribution to the
codebase, but the PMC is overseeing it.  The Committer contributes,  
but does
not have a say.  So there is a natural progression from:
  Contributor (patches) -> Committer (authorized access) -> PMC member
If the PMC membership requires legal and governing skills, I am
not sure the PMC can attain vast majority.
It doesn't.  300+ Committers are already doing most of what they need  
to do,
without the benefit of being on a PMC.
Is there a legal binding between a [PMC] member and Jakarta/Apache
that does not exist between a committer and Apache?
Please see:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.org&msgNo=2711.
	--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]