Thanks Roman.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> One extra thing to note, that while we can *start* this comittee as > > dedicated > >> > > to Incubating projects, it will be a very natural extension to get it > > involved > >> > > in monitoring all of TLPs, not just pTLPs. > > > > What problem exists today where the Board needs > > such a buffer? > > Nobody says it does. At least not long term. If the board > feels like they can handle the load themselves -- there's > no need for the side of the committee that acts that way. > However, it feels like a safer bet to try and have it first > and then see if the load is light enough so that the board > can act directly 100%. > > Btw, board *does* act directly even today (case in point > the thread started by Rich). > > > In what ways could this committee substitute its judgement for PMC of the > > TLP? > > Just as the board's job is to tell PMC when something's going wrong > ditto with the committee. > > > How would one apply to be on this committee? Would this be a case of some > > members being more member than others? > > I see it same way as ComDev (or any other ground like that). There's > a voting process, you get nominated and accepted. The only > qualification is that you *have* to be an ASF member. > > > What would be the process and expectations for resolving disagreements > > between the TLP and this committee? > > Again, since the comittee is just acting as a 'clerk' for the board, the > process is still the same as what we have today between the board > and the TLPs. > >
