Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> -1 from Jim.
> I think that the initial PPMC should stay as documented,
Documented where? Or rather, WHICH documentation? I don't mean the URL. I
mean the current web site, or the proposal under comment, since the proposal
under comment does exactly what you're suggesting should be done.
> since it gets the podling off on the right start, bootstrapping
> the PPMC with those who are already, hopefully, major movers in
> the community.
No kidding?! Really? Great idea! What exactly did you think that
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
meant? Was it really so unclear that "additional PPMC Members" would be
"those who are already, hopefully, major movers in the community."
Look at Jason's example of the first two people added to the PPMC. Or your
own comment that "my hope was that we could setup the PPMC quickly so that
other committers could be added in soon, as chosen by the PPMC." Exactly as
it ought to work, IMO. So what's the problem?
> This simply means that during the proposal cycle the mentors
> and the sponsors and initial list of committers requires more
> oversight.
And the reason why we cannot leave this to the Mentors and "those who are
already, hopefully, major movers in the community" is ... ?
> Or, if you prefer, each podling proposal specifies exactly
> Sponsor Organization
> Sponsor
> Mentor(s)
> Initial PPMC
> Initial Committers
So we have to vote on each person on those lists before we vote on the
project, since we've already had many complaints both about piling on and
being excluded. And then we've got Roy's comment that the Incubator PMC
isn't equipped to make those decisions, so that leaves us with what?
> note that requiring the initial PPMC also implies, IMO, that
> 1 is not the optimal number of Mentors, but at least 3 or
> more would be required.
Already desirable if they want to have any decision making ability
whatsoever.
> Since we already have some issues with podlings with "large"
> numbers of Mentors, this leads the incubator down a path I
> don't think we want.
Such as?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
