On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
without having to go through general@
The issue is allowing proper oversight, and
ant elder wrote:
As long as general@ is included i don't see that any oversight is
lost
Please note that the original poster's comment was:
I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
WITHOUT
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
ant elder wrote:
As long as general@ is included i don't see that any oversight is
lost
Please note that the original poster's comment was:
I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
without having to go through general@
While I find it very helpful and valuable for first time releases (and
first time release managers) to go to general@
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
without having to go through general@
While I find it very helpful and
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 09:33, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
without having to go through general@
The issue is allowing proper oversight, and we've felt that it was important
to give the PMC as a whole the
