Stephen McConnell wrote:
> For all practical purposes you are the defacto point-man with respect
> to the Directory project.
I was curious, so I looked. I am far from the only PMC member (or ASF
Member) subscribed (I was also surprised to discover that there are ~40
subscribers) But although I
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
I will absolutely agree that we want to keep [rules] to a minimum. But
that minimum must exist for the ASF (as an organisation) to work.
Agreed. Some of which I think are for the Incubator PMC to impose on itself
as necessary, but don't ef
+1 on everything below (including the tinker's cuss).
Stephen.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 03:43:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
I'm confused by what you are saying. Do you believe there should
be one person in an authoritative position for each PPM
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The role of the incubator is to actively oversite projects coming on
board. Unless we have someone we can point to who is doing that
active oversite and reporting any issues, then I believe we cannot (as
easily) show oversite.
Doesn't work this way. At work, I show
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
...
> However I believe there needs to be a formalisation that there
is one Incubator PMC member who is ensuring the PPMC is meeting their
requirements of accountability.
The fact that only one is not enough and more are needed has already
been seen in practice and decided
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I disagree. I believe that with the PPMC structure in place, we should hold
the PPMC accountable, just as every PMC is accountable. We need to ensure
that the PPMC members are well aware of the responsibility of the PPMC, and
that it is accountable. I think that instillin
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> I will absolutely agree that we want to keep [rules] to a minimum. But
> that minimum must exist for the ASF (as an organisation) to work.
Agreed. Some of which I think are for the Incubator PMC to impose on itself
as necessary, but don't effect the structure of the PPM
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
...
How about this:
The PPMC starts with every Incubator PMC person who wants on
the PPMC. New PPMC members are then voted in by the current
PPMC members.
It's a start. But you also need the landing PMC members.
Am not so sure about commi
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
IIUC this is what ATM we agree upon:
The role of Mentor is a self-selecting title (eg. anyone wishing to
become a Mentor and has the title to be one as described in our policy
just adds themselves to the projects/index webpage + the project status
page and joins the PP
Sander Striker wrote:
On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 00:27, Leo Simons wrote:
Hi gang,
could someone (mentor or someone else involved) please
start writing and filling out a status file for spamassassin?
I guess that's something for me to take care of. Maybe Dirk
is able to fill in some blanks since he
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I should finally add that we have basically agreed also that the PPMC is
made of all PMC members and all the committers+landing PMC members, but
that only the mentors must always be subscribed to the ppmc and dev
mailing lists.
Yuck, this is terminology overkill. We reall
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 03:43:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
I'm confused by what you are saying. Do you believe there should
be one person in an authoritative position for each PPMC or not? I
am strongly against having "roles" within the ASF. Roles go against
the way vol
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:44:40PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The role of Mentor is a self-selecting title (eg. anyone wishing to
become a Mentor and has the title to be one as described in our policy
just adds themselves to the projects/index webpage + the project st
13 matches
Mail list logo
