On 8/8/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
If they are good enough to change/commit code then they should be able to
vote. Isn't code the core of what the foundation provides anyways? (er
something like that...)
Actually, the community is the core. The code flows from the communi
On 8/14/06, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Every existing committer not on the pmc receives an email asking if
> they would like to join the pmc. Once that email is sent they are marked
> in a file as having had the email sent and we can wash our hands until a
> reply comes in.
I k
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Why that combination? ...feels quite unnatural to me - I am sure so it
will
> for the users.
It's our list of small largely inactive subprojects. We know that none of
those are going to go TLP, and their dev lists are quiet by an order of
magnitude
> Why that combination? ...feels quite unnatural to me - I am sure so it will
> for the users.
It's our list of small largely inactive subprojects. We know that none of
those are going to go TLP, and their dev lists are quiet by an order of
magnitude compared to an inactive TLP potential project
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote:
The problem with moving Commons up is that when you look at where Jakarta
needs to go, and when you look at where Commons generally is now; they are
the same places - and it's hard to distinguish between the focuses.
Hm... interesting... funnily I ha
The problem with moving Commons up is that when you look at where Jakarta
needs to go, and when you look at where Commons generally is now; they are
the same places - and it's hard to distinguish between the focuses.
Hm... interesting... funnily I have never seen it like that before.
Always had
On 8/14/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> I am not really sure how to solve this. I am just ranting. For a few
> projects I think they should go toplevel. For the ones I am involved
> in at least jakarta commons surely deserves it (not loo
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote:
I am not really sure how to solve this. I am just ranting. For a few
projects I think they should go toplevel. For the ones I am involved
in at least jakarta commons surely deserves it (not looking into the
naming problem for now). Having a few more to
> 1) Every existing committer not on the pmc receives an email asking if
> they would like to join the pmc. Once that email is sent they are marked
> in a file as having had the email sent and we can wash our hands until a
> reply comes in.
I know that this is something that we had as the "end-gam
> But if you argue into that direction -no matter how often this has
> been discussed already- I would rather question the idea of an
> umbrella PMC then... (*ducks*)
Time and energy to express the ideas you have in that direction ?
Let's try :-)
IMO it's quite awkward to have oversight over a
Torsten Curdt wrote:
But if you argue into that direction -no matter how often this has
been discussed already- I would rather question the idea of an
umbrella PMC then... (*ducks*)
Time and energy to express the ideas you have in that direction ?
Mvgr,
Martin
-
Just a few comments (as I am a bit late)
At Cocoon every committer can join the PMC by just asking for it. The
idea is that committer do care and shape the project anyway. If you
don't care enough about the project - why would you be a committer? We
are quite open and were working out most of the
Just catching up on mail (and pretty tired, so forgive me if not everything is clear / using words
not in an English dictionary. )
Henri Yandell wrote:
What do people think to the following:
1) Every existing committer not on the pmc receives an email asking if
they would like to join the pm
Henri Yandell wrote:
What do people think to the following:
1) Every existing committer not on the pmc receives an email asking if
they would like to join the pmc. Once that email is sent they are marked
in a file as having had the email sent and we can wash our hands until a
reply comes in.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
Henri,
What is the procedure for PMC nominations these days? I would like to
propose Roland for PMC nomination. He's been an indispensable member of
the HttpComponents project for many years. What list am I supposed to
send the proposal to? jakarta-
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 15:05 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Roland Weber wrote:
>
> > Hello Henri,
> >
> > I'm one of those whom it concerns: committer but not PMC.
> >
> >> So being on a PMC means that your legal protection is something you're
> >> supposed to be proactive ab
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Matt Benson wrote:
--- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Matt Benson wrote:
Henri, out of sheer curiosity, where is it
documented
that a commons committer doesn't have a binding
vote?
The only thing I could find in the charter [1] was
a
l
Hi Henri,
> By being a part of the PMC (and active on the PMC if you're an active
> committer), then you are ensuring that the foundation is involved in
> decisions and not just you personally.
Thanks, that sounds much better indeed.
> Sorry to cause worry. It's the other way around from how you
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Roland Weber wrote:
Hello Henri,
I'm one of those whom it concerns: committer but not PMC.
So being on a PMC means that your legal protection is something you're
supposed to be proactive about
Meaning that a PMC member should get an insurance that covers the cost
of la
Hello Henri,
I'm one of those whom it concerns: committer but not PMC.
> So being on a PMC means that your legal protection is something you're
> supposed to be proactive about
Meaning that a PMC member should get an insurance that covers the cost
of lawsuits, or contact a lawyer right away to d
--- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> > Henri, out of sheer curiosity, where is it
> documented
> > that a commons committer doesn't have a binding
> vote?
> > The only thing I could find in the charter [1] was
> a
> > link to the Jakarta guideli
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Hi,
well, I always thought that the PMC also has a legal role for the code
that it governs? So there might be committers that don't want to be on
the PMC for that reason.
Yeah, it does. The binding vote of the pmc, which provides oversight f
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Matt Benson wrote:
Henri, out of sheer curiosity, where is it documented
that a commons committer doesn't have a binding vote?
The only thing I could find in the charter [1] was a
link to the Jakarta guidelines [2], which in turn
links to a "Decision Making" page [3], which
Hi,
well, I always thought that the PMC also has a legal role for the code
that it governs? So there might be committers that don't want to be on
the PMC for that reason.
I'm cautious +0 for this.
Best regards
Henning
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 16:53 -0400, Henri Yandell wro
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> My view is that we shouldn't keep wasting our time on such a separation.
>
> I think the separation is valid. Jim put it nicely earlier today
> (paraphrased here): committership is the right to vote a code base,
> PMC membership is the right to oversee a project. In
On 8/8/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2) Every new committer automatically gets added to the pmc.
-0 I think the committer role as an initiation period of sorts is good thing.
--
Sandy McArthur
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."
- Thomas Paine
-
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Yoav Shapira wrote:
I think the separation is valid. Jim put it nicely earlier today
(paraphrased here): committership is the right to vote a code base,
PMC membership is the right to oversee a project. In my mind there
definitely is a separation, and the latter requires
+1 -- Yea, I know, it's not a vote, but it's binding anyway ;)
I like this idea. IMHO, private@ probably should only be used to
discuss things that truly should not be public. As I just mentioned
on an entirely different list with a somewhat related topic, one
thing we might do, in cases
--- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Being on a PMC means two actionable things. Firstly,
> you get a binding
> vote; and secondly, you can subscribe to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - a list which
> should be pretty quiet (mostly it's just vote
> results now - would be nice
> to move those
Hi,
My view is that we shouldn't keep wasting our time on such a separation.
I think the separation is valid. Jim put it nicely earlier today
(paraphrased here): committership is the right to vote a code base,
PMC membership is the right to oversee a project. In my mind there
definitely is a
+1
If they are good enough to change/commit code then they should be able to
vote. Isn't code the core of what the foundation provides anyways? (er
something like that...)
On 8/8/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Being on a PMC means two actionable things. Firstly, you get a bindin
Being on a PMC means two actionable things. Firstly, you get a binding
vote; and secondly, you can subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - a list which
should be pretty quiet (mostly it's just vote results now - would be nice
to move those to this list).
The purpose of the binding vote is that that
32 matches
Mail list logo
