Can you please remove the requirement for 3 legally independent PMC members. What we require is a PMC that operates as a meritocracy. This is possible even in a monoculture PMC. It's also possible to have the independent representatives that act in collusion.
3 independents was a useful yardstick in the original IPMC policies. Over the years it became a concrete requirement. We should go back to the original intent both in the IPMC and the pTLP proposal. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Roman Shaposhnik<mailto:r...@apache.org> Sent: 3/2/2015 5:31 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>; Bertrand Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org>; Sam Ruby<mailto:ru...@intertwingly.net> Cc: Apache Board<mailto:bo...@apache.org> Subject: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman.
