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 2007/04/04 13:28:07 UTC
Re: Adding new committers process
On 29/03/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > From my reading of the incubator PPMC guide, the guide only talks
> > about the process up to the point where the PPMC votes to offer
> > commit privileges to a new member. It then links to the PMC document
> > that Martin refers to.
>
> now i've taken a little more time when reading the document, i agree
> that the intention is not clear from the document. all the steps
> listed in the PMC documents need to be followed but the IPMC needs to
> be CC'd as well as the PPMC when the email is sent to root.
>
> this phrasing needs to be clarified
>
> what's worried me for a while is maintenace of information in two
> places: there are guides, descriptions of process and policy for
> projects in http://www.apache.org/dev plus additional explanation and
> additional process and policy for podlings in
> http://incubator.apache.org. really, the incubator process and rules
> should be a superset of apache wide ones but in practice describing
> these means ammendments to some steps.
>
> suggestions on the best approach to this problem welcomed :-)
>
> > It's not documented in the PMC document how to apply the PMC rules to
> > the PPMC. I've had the same questions come up and from what I can
> > tell, it's not documented who on the PPMC is authorized to ask root
> > for a new account, and it's not clear who on the PPMC is able to
> > grant karma on the Podling authorization.
>
> yeh - the PPMC documentation needs a lot more work. i know you have a
> number of good patches waiting to be committed.
>
> maybe it's time to make another determined assualt on the remaining
> documentation. i'm very active elsewhere ATM but i'll try to make some
> time if there are any other volunteers interested in helping out.
>
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Thanks for this discussion. So just to clarify, anyone on the PPMC can
request the account/karma setup just the IPMC needs to be CC'd as well
as the usual PPMC on the root email.
Regards
--
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 Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Apr 4, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Martin Ritchie wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for this discussion. So just to clarify, anyone on the
>>> PPMC can
>>> request the account/karma setup just the IPMC needs to be CC'd as
>>> well
>>> as the usual PPMC on the root email.
>>
>> infra only acknowledges requests from the PMC chair (iPMC chair in
>> this
>> case).
>
> huh? The instructions [1] say "The project PMC needs to send an
> email to
> root". It doesn't say the "project PMC chair". Since root can easily
> verify pmc members from committee-info.txt [2], I don't see why any
> member of the PMC cannot submit the request.
>
> Where the incubator is concerned, it makes an incubator-info.txt [3]
> especially helpful, unless PPMC membership is reliably captured
> somewhere, which appears to not be the case.
+1
It's important to me that individuals on the PMC (and PPMC) are
empowered to conduct the business of the PMC (and PPMC) without
arbitrary single-point bottlenecks. A PMC (and PPMC) member should be
able to discuss, propose, manage the vote, monitor the CLA, and send
a request to root to create the account.
Craig
>
> -jean
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newcommitter
> [2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/committee-
> info.txt
> [3] https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator-
> info.txt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
DB PMC, OpenJPA PPMC
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
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
Re: Adding new committers process
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
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 Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
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 PPMCs role should 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 "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
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?
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 4/6/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ok, I think that has cleared things up a bit for me I'll send out
> these requests that I've been sitting on for a few weeks now as we
> need to get the accounts set up for our new committers.
Just as it appeared this subject was cleared up, Noel replied to
Qpid's root requests with the following clarifications:
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 was not my recollection and is not how I read what we have
documented at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
"Only votes cast by (P)PMC members are binding. If the vote is
positive, the contributor formally becomes an Apache committer. A
(P)PMC member should then follow the documented procedures to complete
the process, but please CC both the Incubator PMC and the PPMC when
sending the necessary e-mails to root."
>From Noel's comments, it sounds like those "(P)"s should be removed
from the above sentence.
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.
So, 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've been very impressed with how the Qpid folks have discussed and
evaluated which contributors should join them as committers, and I
have no problem endorsing their choices. I can also do the sending of
the root requests when there are two other +1 IPMC votes.
But, I wanted to bring the issue up here so everyone can tell me either:
"Cliff -- you've lost your mind. It's always been done this way. You
should get on top of these things or take a vacation and come back
refreshed."
or
"Hmmmm...I guess I was confused as well. I should make sure the
project I'm mentoring is following the points Noel made above."
Cliff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
Ok, I think that has cleared things up a bit for me I'll send out
these requests that I've been sitting on for a few weeks now as we
need to get the accounts set up for our new committers.
Cheers
On 04/04/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > huh? The instructions [1] say "The project PMC needs to send an email to
> > root". It doesn't say the "project PMC chair". Since root can easily
> > verify pmc members from committee-info.txt [2], I don't see why any
> > member of the PMC cannot submit the request.
>
> Whoops :) The *board* only ack's new PMC members when they are notified
> by the PMC chairmain, but I think you may be correct w.r.t. root/svn req's.
>
> I may have confused the two :)
>
> Bill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
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 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
> huh? The instructions [1] say "The project PMC needs to send an email to
> root". It doesn't say the "project PMC chair". Since root can easily
> verify pmc members from committee-info.txt [2], I don't see why any
> member of the PMC cannot submit the request.
Whoops :) The *board* only ack's new PMC members when they are notified
by the PMC chairmain, but I think you may be correct w.r.t. root/svn req's.
I may have confused the two :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Martin Ritchie wrote:
>
>>Thanks for this discussion. So just to clarify, anyone on the PPMC can
>>request the account/karma setup just the IPMC needs to be CC'd as well
>>as the usual PPMC on the root email.
>
> infra only acknowledges requests from the PMC chair (iPMC chair in this
> case).
huh? The instructions [1] say "The project PMC needs to send an email to
root". It doesn't say the "project PMC chair". Since root can easily
verify pmc members from committee-info.txt [2], I don't see why any
member of the PMC cannot submit the request.
Where the incubator is concerned, it makes an incubator-info.txt [3]
especially helpful, unless PPMC membership is reliably captured
somewhere, which appears to not be the case.
-jean
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newcommitter
[2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/committee-info.txt
[3] https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator-info.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Martin Ritchie wrote:
>
> Thanks for this discussion. So just to clarify, anyone on the PPMC can
> request the account/karma setup just the IPMC needs to be CC'd as well
> as the usual PPMC on the root email.
infra only acknowledges requests from the PMC chair (iPMC chair in this
case). For projects, I'd like to see that transition from mentors sending
this message to a dedidated ppmc'er or two stepping into the drivers seat
(it would help us identify future PMC chairs upon graduation).
So... I don't mind exactly who sends the ipmc request, as long as it's
always backed up by cc'ing podling-private@i.a.o as well as private@i.a.o
and Noel can translate that into a root request (or twiddle the svn bits
himself) as necessary. The request must include pointers to the vote
thread and summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org