wking
commented
9 years ago OCI members can figure this out amongst themselves, and don't have a channel for input from external parties like me.
Closed wking closed 9 years ago
wking
commented
9 years ago OCI members can figure this out amongst themselves, and don't have a channel for input from external parties like me.
We never formally define "TDC Maintainers". They're just an example role, and 4.b.viii.1 allows the TDC to define it's own roles. This commit replaces normative references to "maintainers" and "contributors" with TDC Members, and tries to clarify TDC Role-holders as a subset of TDC Members.
It's unclear how TDC Roles are established and maintained (e.g. maybe only Maintainers get to vote on adding new Roles or inducting new Maintainers). Presumably initial the set of TDC Members can reach an agreement on the initial rule adoption, and further rule changes can be governed by that agreement. In the event that they cannot reach an agreement on the initial rule set, I guess they can appeal to the TOB (5.a), although that would have to wait until after the TDC and OCI Members elect the TOB ;).
This PR will have syntactic conflicts (but no semantic conflicts) with the series of PRs ending with #4. I'm happy to rebase either series if one of them lands before the other.
See also #5, where I point out some confusion about figuring out the TDC Member set using runC-side maintainer listings. The distinction floated here (TDC Role-holders are a subset of TDC Members) would allow @vbatts and @philips to be TDC Members without being maintainers, although the charter would still have to be edited to add @cyphar to the initial TDC-Member set (assuming the subdirectory MAINTAINERS files list TDC Role-holders).