I agree that if we had had a more formal review of the initial committers list during the proposal process we would have avoided the kind of conflicts that arose after the proposal was approved.
I would also agree with some other comments that this sort of policy is intended as a guideline since from what I understand projects can be (and often are) run somewhat differently. My view of what happened is that CXF basically got into some difficulties because of different views of how initial committers and PPMC members are identified that weren't resolved before submitting the proposal. It therefore would be good to have a policy that encourages review and debate on this question before bringing a proposal to vote. Thanks, Eric -----Original Message----- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:00 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members Leo Simons wrote: > I have never liked this explicit "champion" role, and I don't like > adding responsibilities to it, making things even more explicitly > dependent on the champion. Keep in mind that the Champion role would still end with the begining of Incubation. So the Champion's role is helping to draft the proposal, including reviewing the Committer and PPMC lists. Someone has to do it. > Take wicket as a recent example -- there its developers interfaced > directly with the PMC to talk about this kind of thing, and not > through their champions. Actually, my view, after having spoken with (almost) everyone involved from Iona and the ASF is that if this HAD been done for CXF, we would have avoided the conflicts entirely. --- 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]
