On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:50AM -0500, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Those people can be seeded as an 'initial
emeritus list' and can simply regain access by asking for it again without
having to prove themselves all over again. -- justin
I still think that's a bad idea. If they don't
On 10/9/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you _really_ want to add this extra backdoor, then at least make it a
requirement that every bloody name has to be on the proposal and make
this backdoor expire at the end of incubation.
No argument on the every bloody name has to be on the
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
quorum of three PMC +1
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
For the record, I disagree with Noel that only PMC
members (and I use the term advisedly)
which term?
have binding votes. My belief is that only PPMC members have
binding votes, and that all committers should automatically
be on the PPMC.
Those are two
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
This has been a long thread to go thru for someone absent for a while.
ROFLMAO.
This has been an even longer thread for those who haven't been absent! :-)
If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely
editable
Wiki), then isn't it very straight
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
What I believe we've found works best over the years is to consider
the entire behavior of the project over its incubation and raise
questions about any trends pushing it in the wrong direction.
I agree. It is about people making decisions, not rules making decisions
for
On Oct 7, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On October 6, 2006 5:38:37 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical
requirements,
but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
members.
Umm,
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the initial list, since I think it helps
bootstrap the community
On 8 Oct 06, at 8:55 AM 8 Oct 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the
On 10/8/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In addition I would like to add the process used for OpenEJB as the
gold standard for creating this initial list:
---
As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty
neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit.
Justin,
On Sunday October 08 2006 9:55 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:55:47AM -0500, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that I'm
okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy with
that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and desire
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 09:32:56AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
---
As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty
neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the
actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status
file and gave
Garrett Rooney wrote:
I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an
incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how
I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's
being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former
On 10/8/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an
incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how
I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's
being
--On October 6, 2006 5:38:37 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical requirements,
but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
members.
Umm, we do. At least 3 legally independent (and active)
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 02:46, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
And then we've got Roy's comment that the Incubator PMC
isn't equipped to make those decisions, so that leaves us with what?
This has been a long thread to go thru for someone absent for a while...
It has been very interesting. I
On 10/6/06, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely editable
Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward?
+1, although I think a Wiki still *should* work if the established
etiquette was not to make edits to someone else's
On 10/3/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
podling and the Mentors.
this is not policy ATM
Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For some reason, I had the impression that there was
a phantom 'P' somewhere in the references to 'PMC'
going back and forth between Noel and Roy.
For the record, I disagree with Noel that only PMC
members (and I use the term advisedly) have binding
clarification on the guidelines.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:19 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Eric,
I realize we may have created some difficulties
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of
community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is
allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore. Even worse, we now
don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:22:36PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
I do not think there has been any piling on. We reviewed each name on
the list carefully and a name only went on the list if we were convinced
that the individual had either (1) contributed previously to either
Celtix or Xfire or
: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:22:36PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
I do not think there has been any piling on. We reviewed each name on
the list carefully and a name only went on the list if we were
convinced
that the individual had either (1) contributed
On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is
natural for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's at least get CXF off to a good start!
robert burrell donkin wrote:
bootstrapping is simply a description of the only process available
ATM. the mentors (as incubator pmc members) are the only ones on the
project who have the binding votes required to take decisions (such as
appointed PPMC members).
if this process isn't good
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
quorum of three PMC +1 votes.
EXACTLY! A minimum of three PMC +1
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
If the PPMC represents the *community* then I like it. But (for me) the
mentors are *not* the community of the podling.
Of course not. They are there to provide guidance *AND* the necessary
official PMC oversight (AND VOTES) required for ASF decisions.
Anything that
Eric,
I realize we may have created some difficulties in merging two existing
projects - Celtix from ObjectWeb and Xfire from Codehaus
But we are nonetheless simply trying to do the right thing, not
stacking the deck to control the project.
OK, let's please stop right here. At least in
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
quorum of three PMC
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:14 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
Mentors
at least get CXF off to a good start!
Thanks,
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:31 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
How could
Newcomer, Eric wrote:
A couple of things stand out to me from this: it is important to follow
the process and treat approval of a proposal in terms of the agreement
it represents (and carry it out accordingly) and that as Roy said
although it may take some time in the end the right thing
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural
for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's at least get CXF off to a good start!
Or kill it now and let the proposers compile a list
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access
to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on
the verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for
communities (like Wicket) where people have earned
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
then stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in
a manner you find offensive.
Why would the PMC not elect the people who contributed it
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies
Berin Lautenback wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
with the results.
+1.
Leo Simons wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
I would say this is part of a
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
-1 from Jim.
I think that
J Aaron Farr wrote:
I agree with Roy's approach -- let the podling deal with the
committer issue during incubation.
Uh ... everyone is saying that we should let the podling deal with the
Committer issue during Incubation. We're only dickering over how. :-)
--- Noel
Mark Little wrote:
Sure, but isn't that the process for if you join AFTER the project
has started? If you're on the list of initial supporters/committers
then it's a different policy I believe. It's certainly not the
approach we were lead to believe when we were approach by IONA to
support
Eric Newcomer:
No, let's be clear, this discussion is all about how someone knows the
right thing to do, which is very hard when the rules keep changing.
Actually, no. There is relatively little (some, not much) debate on what is
the right thing to do. The real discussion is on HOW to do the
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
:09 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural
for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's
, October 03, 2006 2:47 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process,
and
then stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would
act
Once again, no piling on.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:47 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from
not actively doing
anything.
James Margaris
-Original Message-
From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:25 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Once again, no piling on.
Eric
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Putting the process of Committership into the hands of the people managing
the project is the best solution to both.
-1. Putting initial committership, in the hands of the proposer and
people they accept on educated trust is the right answer, along with
the mentors.
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
decisions on
Once again, no piling on.
Opinions appear to differ, although I'll accept that a lot of was
incorrect.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, fair enough - ;-)
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:28 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Once again, no piling on.
Opinions appear to differ, although
On 10/3/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
mailing list. Mentors have
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
podling and the Mentors.
this is not policy ATM
Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronimo incubation.
They do have binding votes on everything
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
with the results. Don't like that answer? Then
Hmpf.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 8:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
I would say this is
On 1 Oct 2006, at 21:16, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
where the
Incubator PMC could provide
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing
On 1 Oct 06, at 6:38 PM 1 Oct 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
where the
Incubator PMC could
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
That's not it. The issue is they have been barred access to a
project they
have only expressed interest in contributed to. They have not yet
contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no
communication on the
dev list,
On 10/1/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do too. And with the number of projects coming in with sizeable numbers of
committers these days, I wonder how long it will be before the committers
coming in this way will outnumber those whose committership is based on (ASF
earned) merit.
There are, as I see it, 2 issues being discussed:
1. Is the Initial PPMC the Initial list of
committers noted in the proposal. I think
we've all expressed views in one way or
another.
2. The CXF-specific issue: that the initial list of
committers was not only NOT
+1
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:18 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The people listed in the proposal as committers
@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Justin Erenkrantz
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're waiting
for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How could they contribute when they were not given access? These guys
have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Uhh, what kind of world are you living in where the
receive a reply.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Justin Erenkrantz
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
open source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there are others where the
communities thrive and
to be allowed to
contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Justin Erenkrantz
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin,
On Sunday
On 10/2/06, Mark Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
open source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there are
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights. Even if that wasn't the case, the
interactions weren't when's my commit coming but we're really
anxious to get involved and
On 10/2/06, Mark Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights.
If that was the impression people were under, then they should break
themselves
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Mark Little wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights.
That's not how the ASF works or has ever worked. It's for
this exact reason
Like I said before: Without wanting to open up flames about what
constitutes a true open source project. Your statements are
subjective.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 17:57, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Mark Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now
I understand that (now). Different approaches to the same problem.
Variety is good. However, where we have issue is in the definition of
earning I suppose: being on the initial committers list when the
proposal was formed was supposed to be good enough. Turns out it
wasn't. It only took 2
On 10/2/06, Mark Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like I said before: Without wanting to open up flames about what
constitutes a true open source project. Your statements are
subjective.
I said nothing about what constitutes a true open source project,
simply about what constitutes a successful
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Mark Little wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only be
done) with committer rights.
That's not how the ASF works or has ever worked.
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett
Rooney
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:05 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How could they contribute when they were not given access? These guys
: Policy on Initial Committership
On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
How could they contribute when they were not given access?
The same way any non-commiter contributor contributes to a project:
1) JIRA - creating JIRA items, submitting patches, etc... I admit, the
CXF
JIRA
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
open source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/2/06, Mark Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights
as a lurker/observer.
James Margaris
-Original Message-
From: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:50 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
I was against that project from start, because some members proposed
It is useful information and thanks for it. I was simply trying to
point out that there are other ways of managing an open source
project and probably no one right way of doing things.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 18:44, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Mark Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, at 2:19 PM, James Margaris wrote:
The project was approved with a certain committer list. What more
can be
said? The project was approved, the committer list was part of the
project proposal, hence everyone on the list should be committers. It
could not be more
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
-1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors are
the
least capable of selecting a PPMC.
I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
You mean it isn't always true. I agree. In general, however, it is
almost
+1
On 2 Oct 2006, at 22:02, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
-1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors
are the
least capable of selecting a PPMC.
I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
You mean it isn't
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
Mentors are only there to help the project govern itself and, in
some cases, be counted as one of the people on the PPMC.
++1. And I certainly did
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
something
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Where in:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
voting
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taken from the Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
then
stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in a
manner
you find offensive.
Why would the PMC not elect the people who contributed it further
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
-1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation, we
would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
access: that is completely unfair.
If we do not accept the people, we don't
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
then
stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in a
manner
you find offensive.
Why would the PMC not elect the people
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
-1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation,
we
would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
access: that is completely
Isn't there a rule that the community should be diverse, i.e. not
dependent on one company? How doesn't this affect the proposal's
initial list of committers/ppmc members?
Martijn
On 10/1/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place where the
Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved parties
believe
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code. -- justin
So are you suggesting we boot out a project like xxx? or are
you happy with incubator projects being fully open for companies
stacking their employees in to own a project?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Justin has raised a concern that we not create an unfair or insulting
barrier existing, active. committers on communities joining the
ASF. Robert and I have independently expressed our views that this
won't do so.
-1. I think your response is extremely
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
