Noel J. Bergman wrote:
<snip>
As written, a Champion must be an ASF Member or Officer. Why? A Champion
actually has no specific rights. Can anyone express a reason why the role
should be restricted to a Member or Officer? One that comes to mind is as a
filter, but realistically, anyone can ask a PMC to sponsor a project.
I don't think it's really relevant any more. The original idea was that
we wanted someone who was trusted within the ASF (thus Member or
Officer) to put forward the project within the organisation. Given the
increased oversite at the initiation stage, I think it's more than a
little redundant now.
<snip>
Following from the idea that a Mentor must be a PMC member, do we have a
need to require them to be an ASF Member, as per the current document, or
can we more simply drive the rule from the fact that a Mentor must be a PMC
member, which is effectively how we have been doing it? Again, I get back
to saying that Mentors are PMC Members who are providing active oversight
and guidance. Does anyone see any effective difference, since PMC members
have equal votes, and the only binding ones? Other than apmember karma,
which means access to private information and the ability to contribute on
restricted infrastructure, what would an ASF Member have that isn't also
vested in someone whom we have otherwise chosen to vote onto the Incubator
PMC?
I always thought that using ASF Membership was more of a guide to say
"we know this person understands what is required within the ASF well
enough to be a sound mentor to this project".
So personally I'd be happy for non-members who have met your criteria
above with one caveat - I'd prefer to have at least one member on each
project to make sure there is someone in the podling that the membership
as a whole have agreed is looking out for the wider interests of the ASF.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
