Re: [modeling-pmc] GMF Committer Vote for Boris Blajer

[Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich,

Yes, that makes good sense.  And
since every project lead is a PMC member (a pattern we probably want for
the new projects as well), that means projects can handle the issue entirely
within their domain.


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)

Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>

10/31/2006 10:22 AM

To	Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	Re: [modeling-pmc] GMF Committer Vote for Boris Blajer

Great, thanks Bjorn.

I'm assuming nobody has an issue with this, so let's move to the any PMC
member is sufficient to consider Committer additions approved model.

Best,
Rich


On 10/31/06 10:18 AM, "Bjorn Freeman-Benson"
<bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Yeah, the Charters all have this phraseology that gives the PMC a
final
> go/no-go decision about each Committer election. Not sure why, but
it's
> been there from the beginning. We (the EMO) consider any one of the
PMC
> members to be speaking for the whole group, so a quick "approved"
from
> any PMC member is sufficient.
> 
> We even do this in Technology: see for example:
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/technology-pmc/msg00175.html
> 
> Richard Gronback wrote:
>> Hi Bjorn,
>> 
>> Just some history on the email Ed just sent.  It's up to
interpretation, so
>> yours is welcome.  We'd obviously like the avoid a change
to our charter.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Rich
>>   

-- 
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215