Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> will all developers be on a PPMC? I wouldn't think so - I would
> have thought it would be like a normal TLP, where those who are
> guiding the project (hopefully nearly all committers - but not
> necessarily) will be on the PMC.
All active Committers should be on the PPMC, just as all active Committers
ought to be on the PMC. As in the case of an established project, there may
a period between being granted commit karma and being granted a voting
right, but in the case of a PPMC, especially early on, I think that a lower
barrier is probably a good thing. But we can leave that to the PPMC, IMO.
> In the case where the project is to become a sub-project of a landing
> project, what is the PPMC for?
To provide a management structure for the project, which is under the
Incubator PMC, is expected to end up under another PMC, and has some set of
Committers.
> the PMC of the sponsoring project should pretty much be the PPMC
No. At the very least, it would consist of the Incubator PMC and the
landing PMC. The landing PMC does not get control until after the project
leaves the Incubator. The PPMC provides the structure by which both PMCs
participate, along with the project's other Committers.
> Otherwise, we have this thing called the PPMC that is going to be
> discarded completely when the sub-project gets to its landing PMC
> - in this case I'm not sure what the value is?
Hopefully the PPMC will be dissolved by merging it with the landing PMC.
> There is no point in having a "practice" (still hate that word :>)
We dropped the "practice" designation.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
