Scott Boag wrote: > Strong plus one for project-level representation, member to be voted in by > the given project. I have been an advocate for this for a very long time. Further background on the HTTPD PMC model, which a number of people advocate that each project should follow (and, I must admit, I am starting to warm up to): 1) The norm is for every active committer who has been so for a period of time (this is approximately 6 months in the case of HTTPD) to become a part of the PMC. Yes, this makes for a large PMC. 2) Any release done by the project is accomplished via a vote of that PMC. Quite a different model than we have today, eh? I feel comfortable with idea of Matt on the PMC, but uncomfortable with the notion of people getting to vote on actions such as releases of AxKit that they can't directly participate in. That's why I advocate reverting back to the policy that XML had when it was young that a committer to any is a commiter to all. If there are any subprojects for which this does not make sense, then becoming a separate project does. > As far as the issues about legal stuff that have been brought up, I wish > the ASF would provide some sort of resource to do this (check on legality > of jars, etc.). I don't think that legal protection should be a function > of the PMCs. The ASF has precious few resources beyond volunteers. It does have some dollars that could be applied to getting legal advice in specific instances which warrant it. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: