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
>>