--On January 10, 2006 2:29:25 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But what I expect to see more often is that the incubator raises specific
concerns with a new proposal that the presenters are willing to remedy,
and that the sponsoring PMC didn't anticipate. That would be goodness.
So I'd suggest, within 72 hours of a new project hitting the incubator,
that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory vote and comment
period if they see issues with what's been presented by the sponsoring
PMC.
The most important bullet, however, is that this is *advisory*. This
committee will not block action by another PMC, but if needed, it will
perform it's job of oversight by reporting discrepancies to the board.
And then, wash our hands of the objections and let the board sort it out.
Remember that PMC's do not answer to this committee, they answer to the
board.
Agreed.
I've mentioned this before under "structure, not content." If another PMC
likes the content, then the Incubator PMC can *not* block it because it
disagrees with the project - but it should ensure that the proposal is
complete. Like with the Solr proposal, it'd be ensuring that there are
mentors listed and that the initial committers list is accurate. Or with
Tuscany, defining the scope appropriately. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
