This is a great discussion. One meta-point to consider: how important
(re: urgent) is this to decide right now?
If people find this work interesting, that's great. But in terms of
rules and procedures, sometimes it's fine to not over-document the rules
until there's a case where they're really needed.
Note that it's pointless to attempt to provide an individual theoretical
standing to make project decisions without an iCLA until we have such a
case actually happen; then we can have the individual work with
legal-internal@ to understand why they won't sign the iCLA. iCLAs are
strictly mandatory to be a committer, no exceptions.
- Shane, who thinks someone can cast a binding vote as a committer (i.e.
on code modifications) after they have submitted the iCLA, and who can
cast a binding vote on (P)PMC matters once their addition to the (P)PMC
has been properly ACKd by the IPMC or the project chair.
On 7/23/2011 2:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
the above set of steps.
-Rob
