incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Little <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:44:06 GMT

On 2 Oct 2006, at 22:02, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>> -1.  Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors  
>>> are the
>>> least capable of selecting a PPMC.
>> I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
> You mean it isn't always true.  I agree.  In general, however, it is
> almost always true, and since we are talking about general incubation
> policy in this thread (not CXF), we should not assume that the Mentors
> have even the slightest clue about who deserves to be on the PPMC.
> The fact of the matter is that the proposal contains a list of
> initial committers, the people in that list agreed to lend
> their names to the proposal in an effort to make it more appealing
> for adoption by the Incubator PMC (or whatever other PMC is  
> responsible),
> and thus it is the Incubator PMC that decides who will be on the PPMC.
> That's what I vote for when asked to vote on a proposal, and as far
> as I am concerned there will be no deviation from that list except
> by voluntary removal or formal action of the PPMC (including *all*
> of those people on that initial list as approved by the Incubator).
> Beyond that, I have no opinion on the specific conditions in CXF.
> I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
> PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
> mailing list.  Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
> Mentors are only there to help the project govern itself and, in
> some cases, be counted as one of the people on the PPMC.
> This is really important.  Fools may call it bureaucratic and too
> much overhead for "open source", but it is that adherence to basic
> principles of cooperative self-governance that allows an Apache
> project to survive the passing of fools.  We exchange the efficiencies
> of individual dictatorship for a less efficient process that requires
> more people to be involved (and thus buy into) whatever decisions
> need to be made.  We cannot short-circuit that process while trying
> to instill it.
> ....Roy
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message