Yes, it's easily resolved, Dave already indicated the three ways it might be resolved. Like I said its more of a lesson to be learned than a reason to delay. Awareness of the issue is enough for now.
Ross Sent from mobile, forgive terseness and errors On Oct 14, 2012 5:55 PM, "Dave Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: > >>> The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the > definition > >>> of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process > which > >>> was designed to identify people with sufficient merit. > >> > >> Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than > >> meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient > >> merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0). > >> > > > > Isn't this easy to solve? All we need is for one proposed PMC-member > > to say that they will, as one of their first actions as a TLP PMC > > member, propose the former mentors for PMC membership. > > > > Is anyone willing to state this? > > Yes. That has been my plan. I also would accept any additions to the PMC > that the Board chooses to make. > > Regards, > Dave > > > > > -Rob > > > > > >> > >> Regards > >> -- > >> Ariel Constenla-Haile > >> La Plata, Argentina > >
