On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
>
>> As long as general@ is included i don't see that any oversight is
>> lost
>
> Please note that the original poster's comment was:
>
>>> I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
>>> binding
ant elder wrote:
> As long as general@ is included i don't see that any oversight is
> lost
Please note that the original poster's comment was:
>> I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
>> binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
>> WITH
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
>> binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
>> without having to go through general@
>
> The issue is allowing proper oversight, and we've fe
> I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
> binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
> without having to go through general@
The issue is allowing proper oversight, and we've felt that it was important
to give the PMC as a whole the opportu
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 09:33, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst
> wrote:
>> I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
>> binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
>> without having to go through general@
>>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
> binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
> without having to go through general@
>
> While I find it very helpful and valuable for first ti
