Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Everyone seems in agreement that general@ is for open PMC-related discussions, and Noel's unearthed some Apache rules that has created confusion as to whether the PMC needs to be involved in the release, i.e., "bless" it for distribution on behalf of the Foundation.The [EMAIL PROTECTED] list IS open to everyone. We're talking about how best to use it, but my view is that it should be relatively light traffic, and used for most PMC and other project related, organizational, discussions. Like do we want a new mailing list for the MailetAPI. Like splitting the CVS repository into james-server, james-mailet and james-site, and the discussion of why. And, hence my aside, that is probably where Release Votes should take place. As I understand Danny Angus' position, that general@ be used for most PMC business so that it *is* out in the open, those are compatible views.
That said, even with the confusion over the PMC's involvement, it is still the committers who decide when to release and then seek PMC approval.
Voting guidelines indicate all contributors are encouraged to participate and committers have the ultimate say in the decision. Also a committer casting a +1 vote indicates he/she is willing to support the release. Then per the sentence that's started the confusion... "Once a release is approved by the Committers, the Project Management Committee can authorize its distribution on behalf of the Foundation."
(again IMHO) Votes for releases should still be made by that sub-project's community/contributors, ergo on the appropriate dev list.
--
Serge Knystautas
President
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
