On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:16:49PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: [snip everything above that I agree with] > Incubator PMC members not engaged in active discussion and development > on a project are on the project PPMC in quality of observers. They > should refrain from voting on PPMC decisions unless really necessary, > thus acting as vetoers of last resort. [...] > Development and discussions go on the dev lists, where the Mentors are > the ones doing active oversight.
These two sub-sections are contradictory. Since technical decisions should not be occuring on any PMC list*, it is not necessary that PMCers be technical contributors. It is completely possible that non-technical contributions earn someone an invitation to a particular PMC (eg. document contributors). I don't agree that Incubator PMC members should only be second-class PPMCers. If an Incubator PMC member wishes to volunteer their time to participate as a seed PMC member on the new PPMC, then they should be a first-class member. (*in some rare cases technical discussions might happen on some PMC list in order to avoid public disclosure of a sensitive topic -- eg. security vulnerabilities. In general, however, technical discussions should always stay on the development list.) > The status update occurs on the PPMC list. Thus, the notion of reporting > to the "main Incubator PMC" is a non-issue, as all Incubator PMC members > are also on the PPMC. I also disagree with this. The purpose of the report is to present a condensed view of the happenings within a project so that others can see how things are going. If they are only posted to the PPMC list, then who will be the audience? These reports should be going to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -aaron --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
