That makes sense to me to.
Dave.
On 02/10/11 18:08, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
+1
Marcus
Am 10/02/2011 01:06 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we
would still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the
status quo of not having such a policy.
You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers
joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a
problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
My sense is that the project is still in a formative stage and will
need significant changes to the PMC before graduation - it has a
number of PMC members who in a normal Apache project would not even
be committers, for example. Once the dynamics of a fully functional
project are evident I would expect to see a more complete rethink.
The partial move of restricting admission to the PPMC now is
counterintuitive if there is no current harm being done.
S.
I'm inclined to go with Simon's reasoning on this issue. In other words,
leave the invitation to new committers as is -- with invitation to the
PPMC also.
We are still very much in the formative stage here at Apache, and,
without extended PPMC membership, we may actually miss extending
additional invitations to folks (only PPMC members can do this) who are
truly valuable based on a new member's involvement for one.
There are many items which can be passed by "lazy consensus". If PPMC
members choose NOT to involve themselves in these aspects, so what.
I see NO harm at all at continuing the current invitation process during
the podling process.
