On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > Sent from my tablet > On Oct 13, 2012 11:00 PM, "Kay Schenk" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > ?.. > >> >> It never occurred to me that any of them would have necessarily been >> interested. > > The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition > of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which > was designed to identify people with sufficient merit. I would have thought
Actually, I explicitly mentioned this, and more than once, in the earlier phase of this process. -Rob > all of your active mentors have earned sufficient merit and should have > been invited to join. Furthermore, at least on mentor indicated a desire to > serve on the PMC, so there was no need for it to "occur" to anyone, it was > explicit. > > This is the first time I've seen a PPMC fail nominate its active mentors as > PMC members. There is a lesson in there for the community but it is no > longer my place to convey what I think that lesson is (since my last mail > was my last as a mentor) > > Ross
