I guess I misread the proposed bootstrap procedure and its
ramifications.
- bootstrap the PPMC from the PMC (assigning Mentors)
- election by the PPMC of project contributors to the PPMC
- election by the PPMC of Committers
1. I was wondering why incubating project committers who are not PPMC
members can't vote for new committers. Of course they can still
propose the candidates and leave the vote up to PPMC. Fair enough.
2. Ok, so ASF existing committers who sign up as committers (not
mentors) on the initial proposal would have to go through a PPMC vote
as well. That's a good solution.
I am all for implementing this procedure then.
Andrus
On Jul 19, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
PPMC can oversee the process and should be able to veto proposed
committers without sufficient earned karma, but I don't see the
downsides of self-government of the incubating project.
The PPMC *is* the self-governing body for the Incubating project.
Which is
why I keep saying that the recommendation should be to have at
least three
(3) Mentors on the project, thus enabling the PPMC to actually hold
binding
votes without needing to wait on the rest of the PMC (although we
should
still be included). Without at least three mentors, a PPMC lacks the
necessary minimum number of votes, and must wait for other PMC
members to
vote on each issue.
As for the question of whether or not a candidate has "sufficient
earned
karma", the PPMC, following the explanation above, has the ability
to make
the decision for each situation.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
