> > 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 explain exactly what you mean by the last sentence above? As I understand the situation, the ASF Bylaws are setup in a specific manner so as to provide legal protection in the event that someone should want to file a lawsuit. The mechanism that affords that protection is the PMC. For more detail, see Roy's message: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED] .org&msgNo=2642. 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, rather than needing to be pushed into it. At least that is my recollection of it. I don't believe that I really understood the whole issue until the past few days, and I am only assuming that my understanding of it is correct now. But if I am right, the upshot is that in order to be protected, you either cannot have a binding vote, or you have to be on the PMC. Hopefully, Roy will either affirm this understanding, or correct my error. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
