Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am pretty philosophically against making every committer PPMC
members.
I don't agree at all. If they contribute code, they merit a say in
the
direction of the project.
Are you reading Dan's statement as independent or dependent upon time?
I
read it as an objection to mandated concurrency. Over time, your view
should be the dominant one, as each Committer becomes a (P)PMC member.
as for the one line that you retained: I view Dan's perspective as
being independent of time - that is, committers should never equal
the PMC - I view that as extremely unhealthy.
If I had read it as you do, I would agree with you. I read it as suggestive
of a process over time, and that at any snapshot in time, the body of
Committers might not be entirely present in the PPMC.
I did in fact mean it as dependent on time. And specifically I meant at
the beginning of incubation. I don't think every committer should be on
the PPMC from the outset. Every committer may be on the PPMC at
graduation, and this is encouraged, but only after they are explicitly
voted on by the existing PPMC members. Now the PPMC may just chose to
vote on specific individuals or everyone at once, its up to them. I
would however encourage only voting people in after they an appropriate
level of committment and involvement with the project.
- Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
