Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>
> > Does the vote need to happen in view of the general public
> > for that to be considered a legal decision of the project PMC?
>
> Of course not, nor have I seen anything that would inspire such a question.
Great, glad that is resolved. I could
At 02:16 PM 7/7/2005, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> I understand the concerns, but I still feel that project decisions
>> should always be made in public. How about if the vote takes place
>> in private and the announcement includes the final vote naming
>> those who voted?
>
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 01:12 PM 7/7/2005, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
For example, from various list threads (including some on this list) I'm
gathering that a private list is necessary for discussions about:
- personnel decisions
- legal points
- negotiations (could use a little expa
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I understand the concerns, but I still feel that project decisions
> should always be made in public. How about if the vote takes place
> in private and the announcement includes the final vote naming
> those who voted?
Since the vote requires a consensus, and therefore
At 01:12 PM 7/7/2005, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>For example, from various list threads (including some on this list) I'm
>gathering that a private list is necessary for discussions about:
>
> - personnel decisions
> - legal points
> - negotiations (could use a little expansion)
Personnel de
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 12:16 PM 7/7/2005, Ted Husted wrote:
On 7/7/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't believe we should have PMC
lists (only dev and private), which is why your scenario doesn't
apply in my model of how a project works.
Could someone clarify on
David Crossley wrote:
> Does the vote need to happen in view of the general public
> for that to be considered a legal decision of the project PMC?
Of course not, nor have I seen anything that would inspire such a question.
To the contrary, the commit that people are discussing documented two
app
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> The history of this discussion was that folks were somewhat unhappy that
> the Derby PPMC voted a committer in without following either of the ways
> described
I do not fault the Derby PPMC in any way. It has made every effort.
Sometimes changes occur as a reactio
At 12:16 PM 7/7/2005, Ted Husted wrote:
>On 7/7/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't believe we should have PMC
>> lists (only dev and private), which is why your scenario doesn't
>> apply in my model of how a project works.
>
>Could someone clarify on the difference between
On 7/7/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe we should have PMC
> lists (only dev and private), which is why your scenario doesn't
> apply in my model of how a project works.
Could someone clarify on the difference between "private" and "pmc".
Is it just nomenclature
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 05:42 AM 7/7/2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>Right now I see this process as a mixed bag that is made much
>>harder by the disjoint between the incubator PMC and the incubated
>>projects' private lists. I wonder what would happen if we made
>>a single "[EMAIL PROT
At 05:42 AM 7/7/2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
>
>>IMHO, the idea of discussing the vote on the PMC list and then having
>>the vote on the dev@ list sounds better on paper than in practice. In
>>practice, the discussion becomes the vote, and creating a s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>> I think this is a particularly likely scenario when the
>> voters-who-count != the project committers -- i.e., where the
>> PMC != the committers. Those non-on-the-PMC committers are probably
>> going to feel that their votes should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Perhaps we could change it to private votes and a slightly more
> formal process for the announcement (along with a suggestion that
> the existing committers congratulate the newbie in public)?
In the scenario I personally consider th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Ken expressed concern:
>
>> The candidate is now in the position of being privately
>> blessed but publicly vilified.
>
> And this will differ how from an announcement that someone has been accepted
> as a Committer, and people who did
On Jul 6, 2005, at 5:21 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
I think I prefer the private vote, acceptance by the candidate,
followed by a public announcement. Or else a pro forma vote
which explicitly states 'only PMC members can vote.' (Which I
don't think is a particularly community-building a
On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
IMHO, the idea of discussing the vote on the PMC list and then having
the vote on the dev@ list sounds better on paper than in practice. In
practice, the discussion becomes the vote, and creating a second
thread on the DEV list is just going through
17 matches
Mail list logo
