incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Lautenbach <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Date Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:08:06 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>>- We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of
>>community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is
>>allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore.  Even worse, we now
>>don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want to
>>create an arbitrary bureaucratic beast (the PPMC) that will make that
>>decision for them.
> That accusation is false, misleading and insulting.  The Mentors are people
> who both the PMC and incoming community have generally agreed will mentor
> the project.  Not some "arbitrary bureaucratic beast", a comment that I
> consider demeaning to the ASF as a whole, by the way, since the PMC is
> fundamental to ASF process.

And I consider it insulting to have my paragraph quoted back without 
putting in the line that qualified what I meant.

"Before anyone jumps down my throat - I like the PPMC, but it should 
represent the community, not (within reason) enforce a style on the 

If the PPMC represents the *community* then I like it.  But (for me) the 
mentors are *not* the community of the podling.  Anything that has the 
mentors alone making decisions - even initially - as to who is in and 
out is (to me) arbitrarily beuracractic.  Alternatively, give the full 
community - as defined in the proposal - of the podling control (through 
the PPMC vehicle) and I think it is goodness.

A good PMC represents the community of the project.  A bad one dictates 
to the community.  Surely the same is true of the PPMC?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message