On 4/10/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/10/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get > > involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on > > their behalf. > > I would think that to be contrary to the incubators intentions. In > effect, it would lead to a situation where the incubating PMC would in > fact do the incubation. If that would work, then I'd believe that the > Incubator would never have been invented.
Note I'm only talking about getting releases out here; the Incubator PMC members would still have their veto on any release vote and carry out the same duties they do during the incubation process. Maybe this new rule should only apply once one release of the podling has been performed? e.g. in ActiveMQ's case we had lots of Incubator PMC involvement during the first release, then there's been a natural tail-off of Incubator PMC interest since. Anyone got any better ideas for how to increase the involvement of the Incubator PMC in the release process? The offer of free beer maybe? : ) FWIW I personally like projects to release early and release often, so I can see this problem getting worse soon. -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
