Hi Jark, Thank you for the response, and I appreciate that you replied directly this time.
However, I have some follow-up points: First, "merit never expires" is a principle about not removing existing PMC members, not a justification for including people in an initial graduation PMC based on pre-donation historical contributions. The two situations are different. Second, if the bar for PPMC membership is set high, I would ask the PPMC to explain how members with very limited visible activity during the incubation period met that bar. Asserting that people are "actively engaged behind the scenes" is not something the IPMC can verify, and is not a satisfactory answer to a governance question. Third, you reference the private mailing list as the basis for the PMC selection criteria. I have read that thread. There was no substantive discussion of the criteria, and the step of publicly discussing and voting on the proposed graduation PMC on the dev list appears to have been skipped. This is a process concern, not just a transparency one. Fourth, you state that the PPMC does not nominate individuals based on seniority or title. I would encourage you to look again at your proposed PMC list carefully. I have data and names that contradict that claim, and I would be happy to provide them. Making that assertion publicly when the evidence does not support it does you a disservice as the proposed chair. Finally, the project has added only one new PPMC member during incubation. I do not think that is sufficient evidence that governance has genuinely broadened, and I remain concerned that the proposed PMC largely reflects the pre-donation founding team. I will take these concerns into account when forming my view of graduation readiness. Kind Regards, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
