Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of
community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is
allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore. Even worse, we now
don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want to
create an arbitrary bureaucratic beast (the PPMC) that will make that
decision for them.
That accusation is false, misleading and insulting. The Mentors are people
who both the PMC and incoming community have generally agreed will mentor
the project. Not some "arbitrary bureaucratic beast", a comment that I
consider demeaning to the ASF as a whole, by the way, since the PMC is
fundamental to ASF process.
And I consider it insulting to have my paragraph quoted back without
putting in the line that qualified what I meant.
"Before anyone jumps down my throat - I like the PPMC, but it should
represent the community, not (within reason) enforce a style on the
community.)"
If the PPMC represents the *community* then I like it. But (for me) the
mentors are *not* the community of the podling. Anything that has the
mentors alone making decisions - even initially - as to who is in and
out is (to me) arbitrarily beuracractic. Alternatively, give the full
community - as defined in the proposal - of the podling control (through
the PPMC vehicle) and I think it is goodness.
A good PMC represents the community of the project. A bad one dictates
to the community. Surely the same is true of the PPMC?
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
