On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than >>> meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient >>> merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0). >>> >> >> Isn't this easy to solve? All we need is for one proposed PMC-member >> to say that they will, as one of their first actions as a TLP PMC >> member, propose the former mentors for PMC membership. >> >> Is anyone willing to state this? > > Yes. That has been my plan. I also would accept any additions to the PMC that > the Board chooses to make. >
Great. Personally I think it makes sense for the PMC to manage its own evolution. This is a non-trivial part of The Apache Way. I realize that the ASF Board has the ability in extraordinary situations to intervene directly in a PMC's decision making process. "As a last resort" and "a blunt instrument" are the terms I recall being used earlier in reference to Board intervention. It will be very interesting to see if they think this is a situation that warrants such action. -Rob > Regards, > Dave > >> >> -Rob >> >> >>> >>> Regards >>> -- >>> Ariel Constenla-Haile >>> La Plata, Argentina >
