Costin Manolache wrote:

essentially, that's correct. the pmc doesn't own the code nor the brand; nor do the committers. it's the foundation that does. the 'benevolence' you seem to not want to trust is part of the officer's responsibilities. if a pmc chair acts irresponsibly ('power-mad') or otherwise seems to be departing from benevolence, the natural recourse is to the board -- which will either chastise, remove, or support the pmc chair, according to its (the board's) judgement of what best serves the project and its community without causing damage anywhere, within that project or elsewhere in the foundation.

any other modus operandi is contrary to the foundation's râison d'etre, so it makes no sense for it to ever be allowed.

it all comes down to ownership, because that includes power over the thing owned. note that the board can dissolve a project at any time by resolution, and there is no recourse. that is an example. the chair is bound by the pmc/project rules insofar as they do not conflict with its higher responsibility to the foundation. consider state versus federal law in the u.s.

essentially, yes. it's so wonderful that you keep pointing out the worst-case scenario. :-) abuse of power by a chair will damage the community, and therefore the foundation, and so it will either not happen, or be speedily addressed when it is brought to the attention of the board.

exactly why i am taking such pains to spell it out. as i have said.

there is no instant know-it-all button, costin. the bylaws define the iron boundaries. many portions of them have not, and will not, come up for interpretation until a specific instance or scenario activates them. this discussion is just such a triggering factor.

again, as i have said, this is one of the reasons i am going into such detail.

see above. if that happens, there is recourse, and it will be handled speedily.