incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: PMC chair vs. reorg proposals
Date Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:39:23 GMT

I am sorry that you perceived an ad-hominem attack in my email. If you
reread it, I think you will find that I described you as 'a vehement
opponent' of something. I do not believe that this meets the usual
standards for a personal attack; it doesn't comment on your character
at all, nor is it necessarily a negative description. If you don't
find it a reasonably accurate description of many of your messages on
this list then I'm afraid that our minds will never meet, and if that
is an insurmountable barrier to my apotheosis to committee chair, I
will just have to live without that role.

Further, the mischaracterization you claim is not supported by a close
reading of what I actually wrote; in the context of my message, 'the
PMC' can only mean 'the incubator PMC and' I wrote 'the PMC,' not your
paraphrase of 'a PMC'. I understood and understand that you prefer a
solution that involves electing people to other PMCs than the
incubator PMC. I don't accept the idea that I am a member of some

I apologize to the rest of the readers for this, but I am having a
thin-skinned moment. I will set my egg-timer to wait at least 24 hours
before consuming any more bandwidth.


On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <> wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 1:33 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Bill has also been the most vehement opponent of one of the
>> possible evolutionary strategies: to elect people to the PMC on the
>> strength (only) of their ability and willingness to supervise single
>> podlings.
> Let's be clear, it wasn't an election to a PMC, but to the IPMC that
> I opposed.  Members of the IPMC have a vote on ALL podlings, whether
> they earned merit there or not.  It is a very confusing message for
> new valued contributors.  And it wasn't their ability and willingness
> to supervise a podling, but on the fact that they had successfully
> RM'ed a release [reading all the docs and rules along the way].  There
> is an impedance mismatch between serving a PMC and the IPMC.
> Please don't mis-characterize what I concur or disagree with.  We'll
> be far more likely to come to consensus if you [collectively] quit
> doing so, and quit relying on ad hominem attacks.  It's especially
> important for a potential committee chair, since the important parts
> of your writings are potentially dismissed.
> Otherwise, thank you for responding to my RFC.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message