On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > On 19 December 2012 13:33, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > >> The status quo seems to be that podlings tend to inherit their Mentors' >> beliefs. That may please no one, but I cringe at the thought of trying to >> "resolve" this one way or another. Consensus would mean one side losing >> after >> a long, bloody battle. >> >> > I hope this is not the case. I hope mentors impartially explain the > benefits and drawbacks of each approach and then let the PPMC make up their > mind. If a mentor is pushing their own preferred route then they are not > doing their job as a mentor in my opinion (an exception being made where a > mentor is also active on the project and thus has the equivalent of a > "binding vote" on the PPMC).
+1 This is very well said. The link I sent earlier told me, an "ASF project works with the distinction of PMC and C". It is not saying an typical project. It says, it is how the ASF works. As mentor I want to explain "how the ASF" works. Personally I am totally fine with both models; in fact, I am even not opposed in having global commit rights for every committer. But we should document that the other model "PMC == C" is practiced by some projects and it is totally acceptable like the "PMC != C" model. Personally I cannot remember a mentor proposed two different models before on a podling I was active. Actually the role PPMC does just lead to confusion. Why can't we remove it and allow ever podling committer to join the private list? When the day of graduation comes the mentors can choose the first PMC who can decide which model it wants to run. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and vote a person out of the PPMC. Christian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
