On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > > ... > >> >> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If > the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine. >> >> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more > important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC > member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate > transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member > directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a > generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors > filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC > require certain parts of the community to report status periodically? >> > > From a purely ASF point of view there are very few things that require PMC > oversight. the following are the only ones that jump to mind: > > - release votes (which equates to IP due diligence)
Here is my concern with limiting the PPMC too soon. Having been through a release vote it is important to know that the (P)PMC members who vote are affirming that they have actually performed the appropriate tests - which means checking license headers and packaging. Fortunately RAT is available to help, but this is a big lift and I expect that for OOo it will take each PPMC voter at least a day to do this properly. Even on PPMCs with 7 or 8 active members getting the 3 +1s in a week is difficult. I see no point limiting PPMC membership until we experience a release vote and cycle as a podling. > - new committers/PMC members > > The project may define a few other areas, but that's up to the project. Important for us all to keep in mind. Thanks! Regards, Dave > > Ross
