You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> on 2008/06/23 09:45:36 UTC
[VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Hi,
I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
"Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
members are required.
That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the PPMC are
> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If the vote is
> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the proposer...
So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
so that we can clarify this and move on.
-Bertrand
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> | +1
> |
> | On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> | <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> |> Hi,
> |>
> |> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
> |> "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
> |> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
> |>
> |> There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
> |> that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
> |> members are required.
> |>
> |> That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
> |> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
> |>
> |>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the
> PPMC are
> |>> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If
> the vote is
> |>> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the
> proposer...
> |> So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
> |> so that we can clarify this and move on.
> |>
> |> -Bertrand
> |>
> |> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> |> <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> |>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> |>> ---
> |>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> |>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> |>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> |>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> |>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> |>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> |>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> |>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> |>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> |>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> |>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> |>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> |>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> |>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> |>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> |>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> |>> ---
> |>>
> |>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> |>> ---
> |>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> |>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> |>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> |>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> |>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> |>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> |>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> |>> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> |>> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> |>> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> |>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> |>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> |>> invitation process.*
> |>> ---
> |>>
> |>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> |>> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> |>> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> |>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> |>> oversight.
> |>>
> |>> WDYT? -- justin
> |> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> |> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> |> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> |>
> |>
> |
> |
> |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
>
> iD8DBQFIX4W5gNg6eWEDv1kRAgR6AJ44JfQm/Fw4tLlcziLNMiQUIZRatwCfU2H7
> 2hhRwZXv1mUmsnfd6y6vAWw=
> =xfO0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
+1
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
| +1
|
| On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
| <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
|> Hi,
|>
|> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
|> "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
|> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
|>
|> There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
|> that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
|> members are required.
|>
|> That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
|> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
|>
|>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the PPMC are
|>> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If the vote is
|>> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the proposer...
|> So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
|> so that we can clarify this and move on.
|>
|> -Bertrand
|>
|> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
|> <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
|>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
|>> ---
|>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
|>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
|>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
|>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
|>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
|>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
|>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
|>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
|>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
|>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
|>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
|>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
|>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
|>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
|>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
|>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
|>> ---
|>>
|>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
|>> ---
|>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
|>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
|>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
|>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
|>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
|>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
|>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
|>> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
|>> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
|>> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
|>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
|>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
|>> invitation process.*
|>> ---
|>>
|>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
|>> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
|>> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
|>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
|>> oversight.
|>>
|>> WDYT? -- justin
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
|> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
|>
|>
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFIX4W5gNg6eWEDv1kRAgR6AJ44JfQm/Fw4tLlcziLNMiQUIZRatwCfU2H7
2hhRwZXv1mUmsnfd6y6vAWw=
=xfO0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
> "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
>
> There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
> that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
> members are required.
>
> That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
>
>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the PPMC are
>> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If the vote is
>> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the proposer...
>
> So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
> so that we can clarify this and move on.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
>> ---
>>
>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
>> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
>> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
>> invitation process.*
>> ---
>>
>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
>> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
>> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
>> oversight.
>>
>> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Noel,
Almost there. I've posted an update to your update.
Thanks,
Craig
On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Craig,
>
>> -1
>
>> But as I've said earlier, there is no indication here that three +1
>> votes are needed from incubator PMC members.
>
>> Needs work.
>
> I agree with your concerns, but how do you feel with the amendment I
> posted a few minutes ago?
>
> --- Noel
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Craig,
> -1
> But as I've said earlier, there is no indication here that three +1
> votes are needed from incubator PMC members.
> Needs work.
I agree with your concerns, but how do you feel with the amendment I
posted a few minutes ago?
--- Noel
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
-1
The proposed process improves on the existing process by aligning it
better with the process by which a PMC communicates with the board.
But as I've said earlier, there is no indication here that three +1
votes are needed from incubator PMC members.
It makes people crazy if they have to look in multiple places to find
what they need to do. This paragraph should make it clear what a
successful vote would be.
From the discussion earlier, there would have to be three +1 votes
from incubator PMC members prior to a lazy vote. And there's no
discussion of what the process is if there are not three binding +1
votes in the PPMC.
Needs work.
Craig
On Jun 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
> "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
>
> There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
> that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
> members are required.
>
> That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
>
>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by
>> the PPMC are
>> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the
>> nominee. If the vote is
>> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes),
>> the proposer...
>
> So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
> so that we can clarify this and move on.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there
>> are
>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
>> ---
>>
>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
>> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
>> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC
>> member
>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
>> invitation process.*
>> ---
>>
>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
>> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
>> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
>> oversight.
>>
>> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Done.
Craig
On Jun 26, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > wrote:
>> I've updated https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57
>> with the
>> changes proposed by Justin, Noel, and Bill. Please take a look.
>
> It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
> have been raised.
>
> Craig, could you commit your patch so that we can close this issue?
>
> Thanks,
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12384533/incubator-57.patch
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> we should remember and capture that Roy raised valid points about
>>> having the *vote* be public, albeit after private discussion. It
>>> seemed that the idea was to discuss it in private, and only vote
>>> in public if it was clear that the vote would go smoothly.
>
>> Offhand I don't recall his post, does anyone have a link?
>
> Does this help?
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200507.mbox/%3C6.2.1.2.2.20050707111451.0b5fa170@pop3.rowe-clan.net%3E
Yup - thanks. So what happened to the mega-folded single list for
podlings-private@incubator.apache.org? :)
The issues Roy raised were broader than committer votes, the whole thread
was more a matter of avoiding new podlings from falling into the backroom
discussions trap. Are we good on that front across podlings, or need some
changes at this time to reflect more activity out at podling-dev lists from
podling-private lists?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > we should remember and capture that Roy raised valid points about
> > having the *vote* be public, albeit after private discussion. It
> > seemed that the idea was to discuss it in private, and only vote
> > in public if it was clear that the vote would go smoothly.
> Offhand I don't recall his post, does anyone have a link?
Does this help?
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200507.mbox/%3C6.2.1.2.2.20050707111451.0b5fa170@pop3.rowe-clan.net%3E
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> we should remember and capture that Roy raised valid points about having the *vote* be public, albeit after private discussion. It seemed that the idea was to discuss it in private, and only vote in public if it was clear that the vote would go smoothly.
Offhand I don't recall his post, does anyone have a link?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
> > Would it be worthwhile to capture this discussion in a patch to the
> > offending paragraph?
> We can capture both sentiments.
Yes. But at the same time as Bill and I agree that:
> there's a concrete basis as-policy for not having public committer votes
> which is against the interest of the projects themselves. I'd make a
> general statement about discussing merit or chastising people on public
> lists, saving those for the private list or sidebar private criticism to
> help the individual see how they can improve their communications on-list.
we should remember and capture that Roy raised valid points about having the *vote* be public, albeit after private discussion. It seemed that the idea was to discuss it in private, and only vote in public if it was clear that the vote would go smoothly.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Would it be worthwhile to capture this discussion in a patch to the
> offending paragraph?
We can capture both sentiments...
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> I have one small problem, and was otherwise +1 on the final proposed
>>> text;
>>
>>>> This approach is considered inferior by many because it is a source of
>>>> discord to have a public vote like this fail or take a very long time.
>>
>>> The reason public votes are inferior is that some of the IPMC members
>>> may
>>> be reluctant to share their private issues or opinions of a prospective
>>> committer on a public forum, period.
>>
>>> There is no other reason for not voting in public.
>>
>> Personally, I generally consider it a bad idea to have discussions of
>> people in a public forum, a view that I consider reinforced as more
>> employers turn to scanning the Internet looking for information on
>> staff or potential staff.
I don't disagree, I'm just stating there's a concrete basis as-policy for
not having public committer votes which is against the interest of the
projects themselves. I'd make a general statement about discussing merit
or chastising people on public lists, saving those for the private list
or sidebar private criticism to help the individual see how they can
improve their communications on-list.
So both are true, and your point is broader than just commit/ppmc votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Would it be worthwhile to capture this discussion in a patch to the
offending paragraph?
Craig
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> I have one small problem, and was otherwise +1 on the final
>> proposed text;
>
>>> This approach is considered inferior by many because it is a
>>> source of
>>> discord to have a public vote like this fail or take a very long
>>> time.
>
>> The reason public votes are inferior is that some of the IPMC
>> members may
>> be reluctant to share their private issues or opinions of a
>> prospective
>> committer on a public forum, period.
>
>> There is no other reason for not voting in public.
>
> Personally, I generally consider it a bad idea to have discussions
> of people in a public forum, a view that I consider reinforced as
> more employers turn to scanning the Internet looking for information
> on staff or potential staff.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I have one small problem, and was otherwise +1 on the final proposed text;
> > This approach is considered inferior by many because it is a source of
> > discord to have a public vote like this fail or take a very long time.
> The reason public votes are inferior is that some of the IPMC members may
> be reluctant to share their private issues or opinions of a prospective
> committer on a public forum, period.
> There is no other reason for not voting in public.
Personally, I generally consider it a bad idea to have discussions of people in a public forum, a view that I consider reinforced as more employers turn to scanning the Internet looking for information on staff or potential staff.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
>> have been raised.
>
>> Craig, could you commit your patch so that we can close this issue?
>
> Did anyone actually count the vote? I have no problem with Craig's patch, but did anyone actually vote for it? ;-)
I have one small problem, and was otherwise +1 on the final proposed text;
> This approach is considered inferior by many because it is a source of
> discord to have a public vote like this fail or take a very long time.
fuck that shit.
The reason public votes are inferior is that some of the IPMC members may
be reluctant to share their private issues or opinions of a prospective
committer on a public forum, period.
There is no other reason for not voting in public.
Given that we are the gatekeepers of incubating efforts at the ASF, all
matter of relevant information needs to be presented when considering a
new project, a new committer or the final graduation vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Craig.Russell wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Did anyone actually count the vote? I have no problem with Craig's
> > patch, but did anyone actually vote for it? ;-)
> It's guide, not policy, so it's CTR.
Yes, I had that thought after the fact: we are clarifying the
documentation of what we do, not changing what we do.
--- Noel
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Jun 26, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
>> have been raised.
>
>> Craig, could you commit your patch so that we can close this issue?
>
> Did anyone actually count the vote? I have no problem with Craig's
> patch, but did anyone actually vote for it? ;-)
It's guide, not policy, so it's CTR.
Craig
>
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
> have been raised.
> Craig, could you commit your patch so that we can close this issue?
Did anyone actually count the vote? I have no problem with Craig's patch, but did anyone actually vote for it? ;-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> I've updated https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57 with the
> changes proposed by Justin, Noel, and Bill. Please take a look.
It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
have been raised.
Craig, could you commit your patch so that we can close this issue?
Thanks,
-Bertrand
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12384533/incubator-57.patch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> I've updated https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57 with the
> changes proposed by Justin, Noel, and Bill. Please take a look.
Your latest patch there looks good to me, thanks!
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I've updated https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57 with
the changes proposed by Justin, Noel, and Bill. Please take a look.
Craig
On Jun 23, 2008, at 12:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> Umm... why "no binding -1 votes"? I thought adding a committer
>> wasn't a vetoable thing, just code modifications. This should be
>> a majority approval vote thing. (with it linked to http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval
>> for details)
>
> A -1 should be triggering a proper review of the objection. If it's
> legit,
> several +1's will become -1's, but understanding why that vote was
> cast
> (maybe obstructionism, maybe personal bias, maybe an unhealthy
> community)
> will help the incubator understand if the project is on track to
> graduate
> and manage itself.
>
> So the "no binding -1's" just triggers a proper review and vote, no
> longer
> just lazy consensus. It doesn't happen often and needs to be
> reviewed.
>
> Bill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Umm... why "no binding -1 votes"? I thought adding a committer wasn't
> a vetoable thing, just code modifications. This should be a majority
> approval vote thing. (with it linked to
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval for
> details)
A -1 should be triggering a proper review of the objection. If it's legit,
several +1's will become -1's, but understanding why that vote was cast
(maybe obstructionism, maybe personal bias, maybe an unhealthy community)
will help the incubator understand if the project is on track to graduate
and manage itself.
So the "no binding -1's" just triggers a proper review and vote, no longer
just lazy consensus. It doesn't happen often and needs to be reviewed.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Jun 23, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> As has been noted, the text of Justin's proposal fails to address
> that if the vote fails to gain the required binding votes, it is NOT
> lazy consensus. The standard rules still apply, and the PMC vote
> would be required to supplement the vote, not just a lazy
> ratification.
>
> Proposed change to Justin's text would be "After 72 hours and no
> requests by any Incubator PMC member for a full vote by the
> Incubator PMC, and if the vote is positive (three or more binding +1
> votes and no binding -1 votes), the committer request is approved by
> the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer invitation
> process."
Umm... why "no binding -1 votes"? I thought adding a committer
wasn't a vetoable thing, just code modifications. This should be a
majority approval vote thing. (with it linked to http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval
for details)
Dan
>
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Craig Russell wrote:
> Noel's proposed change to Justin's proposed change is better but I'd
> prefer that the process be crisper in the case that the PPMC vote
> fails to get the required three PMC member votes.
OK. But I find it difficult to see precisely what change(s) you're
proposing to the text compared to Justin's w/ my amendment. Is it just
ensuring that this:
> If there are not three binding votes in the PPMC vote, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC.
is present in the final result? And perhaps we should cc the PMC votes to
the PPMC, so that the record can be seen in one place.
Would you mind posting a patch to the existing text so that we can see the
entire and precise change(s) to be made?
--- Noel
Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member
votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Noel's proposed change to Justin's proposed change is better but I'd
prefer that the process be crisper in the case that the PPMC vote
fails to get the required three PMC member votes.
<proposed>
Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
practice.
After completing the vote on the PPMC list, if there are three
or more binding (incubator PMC member) votes, the proposer
*sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
invitation process.*
If there are not three binding votes in the PPMC vote, the proposer
calls a vote
on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
vote threads by the PPMC.
</proposed>
Craig
On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below
>
> There is the missing nuance that must be addressed (see below), but
> with that fixed, I'm +1.
>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
>>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
>>> ---
>>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding
>>> the
>>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>>> vote threads by the PPMC.
>
>>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
>>> ---
>>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding
>>> the
>>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>>> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
>>> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
>>> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC
>>> member
>>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
>>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
>>> invitation process.*
>
> As has been noted, the text of Justin's proposal fails to address
> that if the vote fails to gain the required binding votes, it is NOT
> lazy consensus. The standard rules still apply, and the PMC vote
> would be required to supplement the vote, not just a lazy
> ratification.
>
> Proposed change to Justin's text would be "After 72 hours and no
> requests by any Incubator PMC member for a full vote by the
> Incubator PMC, and if the vote is positive (three or more binding +1
> votes and no binding -1 votes), the committer request is approved by
> the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer invitation
> process."
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below
There is the missing nuance that must be addressed (see below), but with that fixed, I'm +1.
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> > Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> > ---
> > Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> > Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> > vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> > podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> > practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> > calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> > discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> > vote threads by the PPMC.
> > I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> > ---
> > Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> > Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> > vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> > podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> > practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> > *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> > discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> > vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> > the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> > consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> > for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> > approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> > invitation process.*
As has been noted, the text of Justin's proposal fails to address that if the vote fails to gain the required binding votes, it is NOT lazy consensus. The standard rules still apply, and the PMC vote would be required to supplement the vote, not just a lazy ratification.
Proposed change to Justin's text would be "After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, and if the vote is positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the committer request is approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer invitation process."
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org