On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for
them to offer to help rather than having one person define the
list. I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this. In
the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be
added and that request was missed somehow. That is what really
caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance
in how incubator does these things.
The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our
Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri). Then people were added over time.
If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC
members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an
official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable
way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project.
Corrrect. And the key word is "inital" PMC Members.
The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion,
seems to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to the
community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that
members were added over time. However, I cannot find any
notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were
being made.
I concur that this seems to be the real mistake. There also was
(maybe even still) some confusion about the list of names in the
proposal. It's the PMC list not the committer list, all committers
will still be committers at graduation. (restating that as I got an
email today asking why they were no longer on the project, so this
confusion still seems to be out there).
I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the
current PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member
was added to the PPMC. This information can then be used in
discussing the proposed PMC membership...
That's a good discussion to have, going to answer that on Jeff's thread.
-David
