Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> For the record, I disagree with Noel that only PMC
> members (and I use the term advisedly)
which term?
> have binding votes. My belief is that only PPMC members have
> binding votes, and that all committers should automatically
> be on the PPMC.
Those are two separate issues. I really have relatively little care about
the latter. On the former, I strongly disagree. If we follow your
suggestion to its extreme conclusions, we might as well close the Incubator
and have the Board adopt all of these new projects. After all, there would
be no oversight nor control. These PPMCs are largely populated by people
new to the ASF. The Incubator PMC is charged with managing all of its
projects: oversight and decisions. We are responsible for making sure that
the new communities develop the ability to act as ASF communities, but we
cannot expect that behavior from day zero, which is why we exist.
> I do not go along with Noel's remarks re PMC and legality;
> one of the aspects of the incubator is that podlings
> are very carefully contained and *unable* to make
> decisions binding on the ASF. Therefore, there should
> be no issue about the bindingness of voted by PPMC members
> who aren't also PMC members -- they should be binding on
> the ppodling. I mean 'podling.' :-)
Votes to elect Committers effect the ASF. Votes to release. Most other
types of things don't even require a vote. Code? You're right: who cares,
so long as the code is properly vetted? I really don't see the need to
debate whether patch A or patch B is the right one, if either. But you
don't have to vote on commits, unless someone wants to veto a change.
So let's put it this way: what "decisions" are you prepared to delegate, and
which ones are you not prepared to delegate? We may find that we are
arguing over nothing.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
