On Dec 21, 2003, at 8:17 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 07:17:57AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:That's the point of getting as many people as are seriously interested
in the subject on the PMC. Then all can participate, and if we discuss
something sensitive (as defined by the discusser), it doesn't all have
to be on Google.
No, that is not correct. The point of having most committers on the PMC is not to keep discussions out of google. The point of getting them on the PMC is so that the ASF can legally protect them, and so that they are legally empowered to participate in the decisions that govern the project.
The reason is *not* that the ASF will protect them. There is no reason to believe that committers are guaranteed legal protection, nor should there be an expectation that they will receive protection.
I'd bet that the ASF would do all it could to help a committer, but that's totally different than what you believe.
The only people granted legal protection are directors, officers and members (and I'm sure that's only if they are dragged into a suit just because of membership status itself), and in some special cases, others working as 'agents' on behalf of the corporation, at the direction of the corporation. Only the PMC Chair is an officer of the corporation.
The point of getting the committers on the PMC is to ensure that any action made on behalf of the corporation is overseen by those designated by the corporation to oversee such activities, namely, by the PMC.
geir
-aaron
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
