You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> on 2007/05/29 17:27:39 UTC
Re: Adding new committers process
Noel,
It has been a while since I posted this and the conversation has gone
cold. I'd like to get some consensus on what the PPMC's role is so
that we can update the documentation.
See embedded comments below.
On 11/04/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > 1. Only IPMC members (e.g. mentors) should send root requests for new
> > > podling committers.
> > > 2. A podling committer vote requires three IPMC +1s to be approved
> > > (ideally the mentors, assuming the project still has three mentors).
> >
> > > This [is] not how I read what we have documented at
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
> >
> > Then we need to fix the documentation.
> >
> > > From Noel's comments, it sounds like those "(P)"s should be removed
> > > from the above sentence.
> >
> > The PPMC has no standing within the ASF. It is a useful structure for the
> > Incubator, but the only binding votes on a PPMC are those of the Incubator
> > PMC members casting them. The PMC is the recognized entity within the ASF
> > structure responsible for the management of a project, and we need to ensure
> > that decisions go through the PMC in order to maintain that role. Why do
> > you think that I keep pushing the minimum of three (active) Mentors
> > recommendation?
So should the PPMC's role be to organise, select and perform the
vote and then forward the vote to general@ for ratification that we
have performed the process correctly.
At which point the IPMC takes control of the vote such that when three
IPMC memebers have voted (Which may have already occured IF the
podlings mentors have voted) they create the account requests and send
them to root@ copying the <podling>-private@ list.
This would then give a bigger pool of recognized people that could
pickup the completed votes and create the account requests.
Alternatively the IPMC could then notifiy the podling-private list
that their vote was successfull so that the PPMC could create the
account request (Learning that process) and send it to the IPMC for
forwarding to root@.
That way the IPMC gets to over see the PPMCs ensuring they are moving
towards the "Apache Way" and root@ only gets emails from people that
they know have the right to request the action.
Thoughts?
>
> > > I honestly don't know if this is a case of things evolving rules, or
> > > different IPMC members thinking they agreed with each other and not
> > > realizing they had different ideas, or (equally likely) that I knew
> > > the "right way" to do this long ago and have since lost my mind.
> >
> > Take your pick. :-P
> >
> > > I have chosen to handle this by offering my IPMC/mentor vote to
> > > the three qpid votes that were summarized on this list last month.
> >
> > > I can also do the sending of the root requests when there are two
> > > other +1 IPMC votes.
> >
> > That's fine. My comment to Martin Ritchie was entirely procedural, and not
> > intended to be any sort of slap. I, too, am favorably disposed towards QPid
> > (questions about the specification process aside). If you don't have
> > sufficient votes, let me know, and I will review the archives in order to
> > determine my own vote.
> >
> > --- Noel
>
I didn't take the comments as a slap of any sort. It is just good to
clear up the procedural work. I would have thought that the incubation
documenation would have been more RC than beta as it appears in places
but I understand the organic process that is going on here. :)
--
Martin Ritchie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Adding new committers process
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
>
>> A suggestion that one of our mentors had made to us was to do a poll for
>> concerns on the private list to see if PPMC was happy with the committer
>> to be added to the project (notice and to see if any of PPMC have
>> concerns). If all went well on the PPMC list, the suggestion was to then
>> conduct the vote on the public list. So far this has worked quite well.
>>
>
> That's similar to a suggestion of Roy's.
>
yes.
>
>> The vote that I posted to the general list earlier today was done in
>> this manner.
>>
>
> Unless I've miscounted, there's an issue with that vote. Resolvable. See my reply.
>
>
A vote has been added to clear it up. Thanks Henri.
Carl.
RE: Adding new committers process
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> A suggestion that one of our mentors had made to us was to do a poll for
> concerns on the private list to see if PPMC was happy with the committer
> to be added to the project (notice and to see if any of PPMC have
> concerns). If all went well on the PPMC list, the suggestion was to then
> conduct the vote on the public list. So far this has worked quite well.
That's similar to a suggestion of Roy's.
> The vote that I posted to the general list earlier today was done in
> this manner.
Unless I've miscounted, there's an issue with that vote. Resolvable. See my reply.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Adding new committers process
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
>
>
>> If your private@ list vote had three +1s from IPMC members (e.g.
>> your mentors), then IMO all you need to do is inform the IPMC of
>> the vote when complete.
>>
>
> Should probably notify the PMC at the time of the vote.
>
>
>> the request for an account should be sent by an IPMC member, likely
>> one of your mentors.
>>
>
> +1
>
>
>> The idea of the "IPMC taking control" seems a little strange - I
>> cannot imagine the IPMC being sufficiently organised/motivated to
>> do that work. Your mentor however, who is also an IPMC member,
>> should be sufficiently motivated.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> I don't personally want to see the IPMC private list given over to
>> voting in new committers on podlings. That would make, IMO that list
>> pretty unusable. My take on Noel's comments is that the podling should
>> ensure that it has got 3 +1s from IPMC members.
>>
>
> Correct. IMO, a notice of the vote to private@ isn't a bad idea, and shouldn't be a high volume issue.
>
>
>
A suggestion that one of our mentors had made to us was to do a poll for
concerns on the private list to see if PPMC was happy with the committer
to be added to the project (notice and to see if any of PPMC have
concerns). If all went well on the PPMC list, the suggestion was to then
conduct the vote on the public list. So far this has worked quite well.
The vote that I posted to the general list earlier today was done in
this manner.
Carl.
RE: Adding new committers process
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Upayavira wrote:
> If your private@ list vote had three +1s from IPMC members (e.g.
> your mentors), then IMO all you need to do is inform the IPMC of
> the vote when complete.
Should probably notify the PMC at the time of the vote.
> the request for an account should be sent by an IPMC member, likely
> one of your mentors.
+1
> The idea of the "IPMC taking control" seems a little strange - I
> cannot imagine the IPMC being sufficiently organised/motivated to
> do that work. Your mentor however, who is also an IPMC member,
> should be sufficiently motivated.
Agreed.
> I don't personally want to see the IPMC private list given over to
> voting in new committers on podlings. That would make, IMO that list
> pretty unusable. My take on Noel's comments is that the podling should
> ensure that it has got 3 +1s from IPMC members.
Correct. IMO, a notice of the vote to private@ isn't a bad idea, and shouldn't be a high volume issue.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Adding new committers process
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Martin Ritchie wrote:
> Noel,
>
> It has been a while since I posted this and the conversation has gone
> cold. I'd like to get some consensus on what the PPMC's role is so
> that we can update the documentation.
>
> See embedded comments below.
>
> On 11/04/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>> > Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>> >
>> > > 1. Only IPMC members (e.g. mentors) should send root requests for new
>> > > podling committers.
>> > > 2. A podling committer vote requires three IPMC +1s to be approved
>> > > (ideally the mentors, assuming the project still has three
>> mentors).
>> >
>> > > This [is] not how I read what we have documented at
>> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
>> >
>> > Then we need to fix the documentation.
>> >
>> > > From Noel's comments, it sounds like those "(P)"s should be removed
>> > > from the above sentence.
>> >
>> > The PPMC has no standing within the ASF. It is a useful structure
>> for the
>> > Incubator, but the only binding votes on a PPMC are those of the
>> Incubator
>> > PMC members casting them. The PMC is the recognized entity within
>> the ASF
>> > structure responsible for the management of a project, and we need
>> to ensure
>> > that decisions go through the PMC in order to maintain that role.
>> Why do
>> > you think that I keep pushing the minimum of three (active) Mentors
>> > recommendation?
>
> So should the PPMC's role be to organise, select and perform the
> vote and then forward the vote to general@ for ratification that we
> have performed the process correctly.
Well, it really depends upon whether you've got IPMC members (e.g.
mentors) on your private list. If your private@ list vote had three +1s
from IPMC members (e.g. your mentors), then IMO all you need to do is
inform the IPMC of the vote when complete. Also, the request for an
account should be sent by an IPMC member, likely one of your mentors.
> At which point the IPMC takes control of the vote such that when three
> IPMC memebers have voted (Which may have already occured IF the
> podlings mentors have voted) they create the account requests and send
> them to root@ copying the <podling>-private@ list.
I think the thing is to remember that your mentor(s) is going to be an
IPMC member. The idea of the "IPMC taking control" seems a little
strange - I cannot imagine the IPMC being sufficiently
organised/motivated to do that work. Your mentor however, who is also an
IPMC member, should be sufficiently motivated. And if they're not,
you're at liberty to kick their butts :-)
> This would then give a bigger pool of recognized people that could
> pickup the completed votes and create the account requests.
> Alternatively the IPMC could then notifiy the podling-private list
> that their vote was successfull so that the PPMC could create the
> account request (Learning that process) and send it to the IPMC for
> forwarding to root@.
I don't personally want to see the IPMC private list given over to
voting in new committers on podlings. That would make, IMO that list
pretty unusable. My take on Noel's comments is that the podling should
ensure that it has got 3 +1s from IPMC members. If it hasn't, it could
use a mail to private@incubator to solicit them, but those votes would
go to the podling's private list.
> That way the IPMC gets to over see the PPMCs ensuring they are moving
> towards the "Apache Way" and root@ only gets emails from people that
> they know have the right to request the action.
>
> Thoughts?
For all intents and purposes, IPMC == podling mentors. Other IPMC
members are not likely to be sufficiently motivated to make what you
mention above actually work.
>> > > I honestly don't know if this is a case of things evolving rules, or
>> > That's fine. My comment to Martin Ritchie was entirely procedural,
>> and not
>> > intended to be any sort of slap. I, too, am favorably disposed
>> towards QPid
>> > (questions about the specification process aside). If you don't have
>> > sufficient votes, let me know, and I will review the archives in
>> order to
>> > determine my own vote.
>> >
>> > --- Noel
>>
> I didn't take the comments as a slap of any sort. It is just good to
> clear up the procedural work. I would have thought that the incubation
> documenation would have been more RC than beta as it appears in places
> but I understand the organic process that is going on here. :)
Well, I think we're still working some of this out. And you're helping
with that :-)
Regards, Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Adding new committers process
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Martin Ritchie wrote:
> I'd like to get some consensus on what the PPMC's role is so
> that we can update the documentation.
> On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > The PPMC has no standing within the ASF. It is a useful structure for the
> > Incubator, but the only binding votes on a PPMC are those of the Incubator
> > PMC members casting them. The PMC is the recognized entity within the ASF
> > structure responsible for the management of a project, and we need to ensure
> > that decisions go through the PMC in order to maintain that role. Why do
> > you think that I keep pushing the minimum of three (active) Mentors
> > recommendation?
> So should the PPMC's role be to organise, select and perform the
> vote and then forward the vote to general@ for ratification that
> we have performed the process correctly.
> At which point the IPMC takes control of the vote such that when
> three IPMC memebers have voted (Which may have already occured
> IF the podlings mentors have voted) they create the account
> requests and send them to root@ copying the <podling>-private@ list.
For any vote, committer or otherwise, the PPMC should do as you describe, including notifying the Incubator PMC of the vote. In the case of most votes, notification would be on general@, but in the case of a committer vote, it most likely would occur on private@. The binding votes are those cast by the Incubator PMC (exception: in the case of a vote for *PPMC* membership, since that body has no legal standing, there is no need for Incubator PMC votes) and follow standard ASF voting rules.
At such point as the vote is concluded, one of the project's Mentors, who is an Incubator PMC member, should be acting on the result. Requests to root must be cc'd to private@${PMC}, so that would imply root@, private@, and ${podling}-private@.
If at any point a podling feels that its Mentors are not active enough, they should raise their concern with the Incubator PMC.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org