Conor MacNeill wrote:
hi Greg,
Maybe it would be a good idea to forward this or somethign similar to the
committers list. I'd say there is a number of a committers who are not
aware of these legal issues.
Whaddayareckon?
Add members to it too, please.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAI
hi Greg,
Maybe it would be a good idea to forward this or somethign similar to the
committers list. I'd say there is a number of a committers who are not
aware of these legal issues.
Whaddayareckon?
Conor
> If you don't have a binding vote, then you are not responsible. The people
> *with* th
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:43:33PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>...
> When the James project was initially looking at TLP status, Nicola Ken
> forwarded a message from Roy that included a comment to the effect that if
> Committers understood their legal exposure, they would demand TLP status,
> r
> > At some point, hopefully not too far down the pike, the
> > Committer is voted into the PMC. Until that happens,
> > the Committer does not have a binding vote. Cannot
> > have a binding vote, because to have one outside of the
> > legal structure would expose the Committer.
> Can you explai
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Committers could be given commit access long before having project
member status, and would thus be able to commit but not vote. This
makes it possible to keep a high bar for membership of the project but
a lower bar for committing.
Is this possibl
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Committers could be given commit access long before having project
> member status, and would thus be able to commit but not vote. This
> makes it possible to keep a high bar for membership of the project but
> a lower bar for committing.
>
> Is this possible/wanted?
A
On Nov 23, 2003, at 10:10 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
There is only one thing that would *really* change and that has not
been done till now.
Committers could be given commit access long before having project
member status, and would thus be able to commit but not vote. This
makes it possible
Noel made an interesting suggestion on the PMC list:
---
Alternatively, the PPMC could consist of the Incubator PMC, the destination
PMC (in cases where there is one), and project Committers. In that case,
there is a single streamlined process, without additional interconnects.
This does have the
Leo Simons wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Committers could be given commit access long before having project
member status, and would thus be able to commit but not vote. This
makes it possible to keep a high bar for membership of the project but
a lower bar for committing.
Is this possible
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Committers could be given commit access long before having project
member status, and would thus be able to commit but not vote. This
makes it possible to keep a high bar for membership of the project but
a lower bar for committing.
Is this possible/wanted?
I think I
Secondly, given the original intent of the concept of a PMC, I am
curious as to why the board permitted umbrella PMCs such as XML and
Jakarta.
The board did not create umbrella PMCs -- XML was Xerces and Jakarta
was Tomcat/Watchdog. They grew beyond that because their names implied
more, and nob
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
...
The ability to make ASF decisions starts with the board and is
delegated to officers and their associated committees. Anyone casting
binding votes (meaning votes that are counted toward making a decision)
must be listed as a member of the committee on which they are voti
Sam Ruby wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
...
Jakarta got into a weird state
wherein committer == voter and commit-access was given out like candy,
thus leading to the notion that committers run ASF projects. I don't
believe it is appropriate to link voting with cvs access.
...
P.S. Can somebody exp
Phil Steitz wrote:
...
Are you proposing that committers who are not PMC members or "Project
Committers" should not have voting rights?
On the PMC list it has come out that we were misunderstanding each other
over the term "binding votes".
Let me explain what we said.
Some talked about a vote m
Roy,
Thankyou. Read with great interest, and it put a few things into
perspective. Particularly the fact that to me the Practice PMCs made no
sense from my perspective (based in the XML project's world). I think I
now understand why.
Couple of things came to mind whilst I was ruminating on
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Geir has proposed that we create practice PMCs (a.k.a. subprojects)
as part of incubation, and that we call them "Project Committers"
lists rather than PMCs. I am +1 on the notion in general, but I
would prefer to call them core groups instead. My rationale is that
"commit
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
[Moved from the PMC list -- folks have got to stop proposing such
things on the wrong list.]
A long time ago, the name PMC was created in an attempt to genericize
the way that the Apache Group operated, using terminology that would be
easily understood by a judge or IRS inspe
[Moved from the PMC list -- folks have got to stop proposing such
things on the wrong list.]
A long time ago, the name PMC was created in an attempt to genericize
the way that the Apache Group operated, using terminology that would be
easily understood by a judge or IRS inspector. Unfortunately, t
18 matches
Mail list logo
