You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> on 2007/05/29 17:12:03 UTC
[RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
The following vote has been open for 6 days, Here is the vote result to
add Arnuad
Simon to the Qpid project.
regards
Carl.
Vote results so far
15 +1 votes
1 0
No -1.
+1 votes
Cliff Schmidt
Paul Frematle
Alan Conway
Kevin Smith
Andrew Stitcher
Rajith Attapattu
Tomas Restrepo
Kim van der Riet
Martin Ritchie
Rupert Smith
Gordon Sim
Robert Grieg
Robert Godfrey
Carl Trieloff
Rafael Schloming
0 vote:
Yoav Shapira
Vote thread -- note two links as I first incorrectly posted without
[vote], added [vote] minutes later...
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-qpid-dev/200705.mbox/%3c46549B64.8090607@redhat.com%3e
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-qpid-dev/200705.mbox/%3c46549AB3.8060302@redhat.com%3e
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
To clear things up, add my +1 to the vote. Arnaud's activity in the
JIRA looks good.
Watch the '0 votes' bit. Normally we take that to mean a +0, so the
immediate question is "Why did Yoav not want to vote +1?", but I think
you meant that he hadn't voted. Plus what Noel just said.
Hen
On 5/29/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> The following vote has been open for 6 days, Here is the vote result to
> add Arnuad
> Simon to the Qpid project.
>
> regards
> Carl.
>
> Vote results so far
> 15 +1 votes
> 1 0
> No -1.
>
> +1 votes
> Cliff Schmidt
> Paul Frematle
> Alan Conway
> Kevin Smith
> Andrew Stitcher
> Rajith Attapattu
> Tomas Restrepo
> Kim van der Riet
> Martin Ritchie
> Rupert Smith
> Gordon Sim
> Robert Grieg
> Robert Godfrey
> Carl Trieloff
> Rafael Schloming
>
> 0 vote:
> Yoav Shapira
>
> Vote thread -- note two links as I first incorrectly posted without
> [vote], added [vote] minutes later...
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-qpid-dev/200705.mbox/%3c46549B64.8090607@redhat.com%3e
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-qpid-dev/200705.mbox/%3c46549AB3.8060302@redhat.com%3e
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
To clear things up, add my +1 to the vote. Arnaud's activity in the
JIRA looks good.
Watch the '0 votes' bit. Normally we take that to mean a +0, so the
immediate question is "Why did Yoav not want to vote +1?", but I think
you meant that he hadn't voted. Plus what Noel just said.
Hen
On 5/29/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> The following vote has been open for 6 days, Here is the vote result to
> add Arnuad
> Simon to the Qpid project.
>
> regards
> Carl.
>
> Vote results so far
> 15 +1 votes
> 1 0
> No -1.
>
> +1 votes
> Cliff Schmidt
> Paul Frematle
> Alan Conway
> Kevin Smith
> Andrew Stitcher
> Rajith Attapattu
> Tomas Restrepo
> Kim van der Riet
> Martin Ritchie
> Rupert Smith
> Gordon Sim
> Robert Grieg
> Robert Godfrey
> Carl Trieloff
> Rafael Schloming
>
> 0 vote:
> Yoav Shapira
>
> Vote thread -- note two links as I first incorrectly posted without
> [vote], added [vote] minutes later...
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-qpid-dev/200705.mbox/%3c46549B64.8090607@redhat.com%3e
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-qpid-dev/200705.mbox/%3c46549AB3.8060302@redhat.com%3e
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Protections?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Gilles Scokart wrote:
> My understanding is that ASF provide us some kind of 'legal'
> protection (I don't know which one) provided that you have
> send your ICLA. Isn't it a type of contract?
There are several issues, but there is no "contract" between the ASF and
Committers to protect them, although we try to see that all contributors are
protected. The Apache License is intended to provide a number of
protections. Likewise, the way in which Apache projects are governed is
designed to provide protection. There are reasons for the collective
decision making process, and the requirement for group oversight. Amongst
them is the intent that no one individual would be considered liable for
code. This is also behind the strong recommendation from the Board that
code not contain author tags.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Gilles Scokart wrote:
> My understanding is that ASF provide us some kind of 'legal'
> protection (I don't know which one) provided that you have send your
> ICLA. Isn't it a type of contract?
Acutally, that would be the AL (which you license your contributions under)
which says "no warranty - don't sue me" and "if you add a warranty, you must
indemnify me".
If they don't accept your license, they have no right to use your code.
> 2007/5/30, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>:
>> Allowing the user to commit, doesn't look like
>> a legal action either, and if 'reception of a commit' is the actual legal
>> act, then every commit must be under the microscope of the PMCs and
>> becomes unmanagable, and the CLA is there to prevent that.
You stumped for the moment :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Gilles Scokart <gs...@gmail.com>.
My understanding is that ASF provide us some kind of 'legal'
protection (I don't know which one) provided that you have send your
ICLA. Isn't it a type of contract?
Gilles
2007/5/30, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 12:42, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > Mmm - bzzz - that's incorrect. You'll recall you signed a legally binding
> > document to become a committer?
>
> Hmmmm... Now when you mention it, it is actually quite interesting.
>
> First of all the ICLA is not a contract (from the little I know of contract
> law there must be 'something for something' exchanged between two parties),
> it is a license. "I" voluntarily provide rights[1] to ASF. It is for ASF to
> use those rights or not to its own discretion. Right?
>
> So, anyone can actually fax that license to the Secretary of ASF, and by
> filing the license in the foundation's records, ASF still has no
> contractual/legal obligation towards the sender of the fax. ASF never enters
> a contract with the committer.
>
> The act of signing and faxing the license to ASF, is not something that the
> PMCs can oversee (other than "don't grant commit rights if no CLA on file"),
> as that is for the individual to do. He/she got the "legal consequence" as
> soon as that document reaches ASF.
>
> So, I honestly fail to see where it becomes a "legal consequence" to the _ASF_
> that a person is provided commit access to a codebase. It is definately not
> in the act of sending the CLA. Allowing the user to commit, doesn't look like
> a legal action either, and if 'reception of a commit' is the actual legal
> act, then every commit must be under the microscope of the PMCs and becomes
> unmanagable, and the CLA is there to prevent that.
>
> Perhaps you can provide a better angle.
>
>
> [1] Also that IP rights you contribute is yours to do so, and if not it is
> your fault and not ASF's. You effectively indemnify ASF against claims on IP
> rights you have committed to the codebases.
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Gilles SCOKART
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 12:42, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Mmm - bzzz - that's incorrect. You'll recall you signed a legally binding
> document to become a committer?
Hmmmm... Now when you mention it, it is actually quite interesting.
First of all the ICLA is not a contract (from the little I know of contract
law there must be 'something for something' exchanged between two parties),
it is a license. "I" voluntarily provide rights[1] to ASF. It is for ASF to
use those rights or not to its own discretion. Right?
So, anyone can actually fax that license to the Secretary of ASF, and by
filing the license in the foundation's records, ASF still has no
contractual/legal obligation towards the sender of the fax. ASF never enters
a contract with the committer.
The act of signing and faxing the license to ASF, is not something that the
PMCs can oversee (other than "don't grant commit rights if no CLA on file"),
as that is for the individual to do. He/she got the "legal consequence" as
soon as that document reaches ASF.
So, I honestly fail to see where it becomes a "legal consequence" to the _ASF_
that a person is provided commit access to a codebase. It is definately not
in the act of sending the CLA. Allowing the user to commit, doesn't look like
a legal action either, and if 'reception of a commit' is the actual legal
act, then every commit must be under the microscope of the PMCs and becomes
unmanagable, and the CLA is there to prevent that.
Perhaps you can provide a better angle.
[1] Also that IP rights you contribute is yours to do so, and if not it is
your fault and not ASF's. You effectively indemnify ASF against claims on IP
rights you have committed to the codebases.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 07:15, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> LEGALLY PPMC votes mean zilch; this is because the board did not charter
>> or compose the PPMC, doesn't decompose it, doesn't even oversee it per say.
>
> And a majority of decisions within a (P)PMC has no legal consequence, and
> hence no need for the Board (or the delegated IPMC) to oversee.
> AFAIK, adding a committer is not a legal action, and IMHO no need for the IPMC
> to make the decision formal.
Mmm - bzzz - that's incorrect. You'll recall you signed a legally binding
document to become a committer? Yes - two common actions, releasing code,
and adding committers, are board actions delegated to PMCs.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 07:15, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> LEGALLY PPMC votes mean zilch; this is because the board did not charter
> or compose the PPMC, doesn't decompose it, doesn't even oversee it per say.
And a majority of decisions within a (P)PMC has no legal consequence, and
hence no need for the Board (or the delegated IPMC) to oversee.
AFAIK, adding a committer is not a legal action, and IMHO no need for the IPMC
to make the decision formal.
IMHO, the PPMC is authorative of voting in new committers with the guidance of
the mentors.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> That's not true. Practically speaking, mentors may not have time to
> review an issue that other PPMC members have had plenty of time to
> review and vote upon.
That's true, but we are overseeing their -process- not always the
details. I have a great deal of confidence in voting +1 on a decision
that requires PMC approval, once I've watched a reasoned discussion
between the PPMC members on the list.
> More importantly, what's the point of having a PPMC and having its
> non-mentors vote on anything, if their votes aren't counted? I guess
> it's a general question: if PPMC legally mean zilch, why have them at
> all?
It's a TLP PMC on training wheels. We vote at graduation not for a really
cool codebase - there are a cast of thousands of those out there. We are
actually voting that this group of committers are ready to manage their
own effort in an ASF spirit.
> I always thought a main point of the Incubator was to teach incoming
> committers how Apache works. And a main point of how Apache works is
> that all committers on a project have equal votes...
yup. which is why - barring something very specific that I need to fix
in the project - I'll always vote along with the majority in any healthy
incubating PPMC that I mentor.
Bill
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> That's not true. Practically speaking, mentors may not have time to
> review an issue that other PPMC members have had plenty of time to
> review and vote upon.
That's true, but we are overseeing their -process- not always the
details. I have a great deal of confidence in voting +1 on a decision
that requires PMC approval, once I've watched a reasoned discussion
between the PPMC members on the list.
> More importantly, what's the point of having a PPMC and having its
> non-mentors vote on anything, if their votes aren't counted? I guess
> it's a general question: if PPMC legally mean zilch, why have them at
> all?
It's a TLP PMC on training wheels. We vote at graduation not for a really
cool codebase - there are a cast of thousands of those out there. We are
actually voting that this group of committers are ready to manage their
own effort in an ASF spirit.
> I always thought a main point of the Incubator was to teach incoming
> committers how Apache works. And a main point of how Apache works is
> that all committers on a project have equal votes...
yup. which is why - barring something very specific that I need to fix
in the project - I'll always vote along with the majority in any healthy
incubating PPMC that I mentor.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hey,
On 5/29/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> They've put the onus on the IPMC to oversee and conduct all incubating
> projects. In practice, that means the IPMC puts their weight behind
> the PPMC members' decisions. Practically speaking, unless something
> is horribly wrong with a proposal/decision, the mentors are going to
> vote with the majority of the PPMC members
That's not true. Practically speaking, mentors may not have time to
review an issue that other PPMC members have had plenty of time to
review and vote upon.
More importantly, what's the point of having a PPMC and having its
non-mentors vote on anything, if their votes aren't counted? I guess
it's a general question: if PPMC legally mean zilch, why have them at
all?
I always thought a main point of the Incubator was to teach incoming
committers how Apache works. And a main point of how Apache works is
that all committers on a project have equal votes...
Yoav
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hey,
On 5/29/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> They've put the onus on the IPMC to oversee and conduct all incubating
> projects. In practice, that means the IPMC puts their weight behind
> the PPMC members' decisions. Practically speaking, unless something
> is horribly wrong with a proposal/decision, the mentors are going to
> vote with the majority of the PPMC members
That's not true. Practically speaking, mentors may not have time to
review an issue that other PPMC members have had plenty of time to
review and vote upon.
More importantly, what's the point of having a PPMC and having its
non-mentors vote on anything, if their votes aren't counted? I guess
it's a general question: if PPMC legally mean zilch, why have them at
all?
I always thought a main point of the Incubator was to teach incoming
committers how Apache works. And a main point of how Apache works is
that all committers on a project have equal votes...
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
>
> On 5/29/07, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>> binding. There were plenty of PPMC +1 votes without my vote. If I'm
>> wrong, it (a) sucks because other PPMC members don't learn the Apache
>> Way, and we're telling them they don't count, and (b) the
>> documentation link above is out of date.
>
> Having now caught up with a coupe of other threads, I think the
> direction we're going (where only IPMC member votes count, and other
> PPMC committer votes do not) REALLY sucks. It makes the PPMC vote a
> joke. I strongly prefer that what the documentation at the above URL
> stay as-is and that process continue to be used.
LEGALLY PPMC votes mean zilch; this is because the board did not charter
or compose the PPMC, doesn't decompose it, doesn't even oversee it per say.
They've put the onus on the IPMC to oversee and conduct all incubating
projects. In practice, that means the IPMC puts their weight behind
the PPMC members' decisions. Practically speaking, unless something
is horribly wrong with a proposal/decision, the mentors are going to
vote with the majority of the PPMC members, giving their decision the
force of an ASF board decision about the incubating podling, new
committer, what have you.
SO... for all intents and purposes, the PPMC votes DO matter. Very much.
It's just that technically, 3 IPMC +1's are needed to ratify their
decision.
And in reality the board is not overseeing each PPMC, but really it's
the effectiveness of the IPMC at managing all of our podlings that they
look at each month :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
>
> On 5/29/07, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>> binding. There were plenty of PPMC +1 votes without my vote. If I'm
>> wrong, it (a) sucks because other PPMC members don't learn the Apache
>> Way, and we're telling them they don't count, and (b) the
>> documentation link above is out of date.
>
> Having now caught up with a coupe of other threads, I think the
> direction we're going (where only IPMC member votes count, and other
> PPMC committer votes do not) REALLY sucks. It makes the PPMC vote a
> joke. I strongly prefer that what the documentation at the above URL
> stay as-is and that process continue to be used.
LEGALLY PPMC votes mean zilch; this is because the board did not charter
or compose the PPMC, doesn't decompose it, doesn't even oversee it per say.
They've put the onus on the IPMC to oversee and conduct all incubating
projects. In practice, that means the IPMC puts their weight behind
the PPMC members' decisions. Practically speaking, unless something
is horribly wrong with a proposal/decision, the mentors are going to
vote with the majority of the PPMC members, giving their decision the
force of an ASF board decision about the incubating podling, new
committer, what have you.
SO... for all intents and purposes, the PPMC votes DO matter. Very much.
It's just that technically, 3 IPMC +1's are needed to ratify their
decision.
And in reality the board is not overseeing each PPMC, but really it's
the effectiveness of the IPMC at managing all of our podlings that they
look at each month :)
Bill
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hey,
On 5/29/07, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I always thought (and the documentation at
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
> binding. There were plenty of PPMC +1 votes without my vote. If I'm
> wrong, it (a) sucks because other PPMC members don't learn the Apache
> Way, and we're telling them they don't count, and (b) the
> documentation link above is out of date.
Having now caught up with a coupe of other threads, I think the
direction we're going (where only IPMC member votes count, and other
PPMC committer votes do not) REALLY sucks. It makes the PPMC vote a
joke. I strongly prefer that what the documentation at the above URL
stay as-is and that process continue to be used.
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hey,
On 5/29/07, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I always thought (and the documentation at
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
> binding. There were plenty of PPMC +1 votes without my vote. If I'm
> wrong, it (a) sucks because other PPMC members don't learn the Apache
> Way, and we're telling them they don't count, and (b) the
> documentation link above is out of date.
Having now caught up with a coupe of other threads, I think the
direction we're going (where only IPMC member votes count, and other
PPMC committer votes do not) REALLY sucks. It makes the PPMC vote a
joke. I strongly prefer that what the documentation at the above URL
stay as-is and that process continue to be used.
Yoav
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 5/30/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
> > One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views from
> > different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who can not
> > send the account setup mail to root?"
>
> The view that counts is from
> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newcommitter. Please note: that is not
> an Incubator URL. These are ASF-wide documents, and everyone should
> become
> familar with the contents under http://www.apache.org/dev.
>
> > Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a mentor
> > have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the mail to root just
> > contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC members on it from the
> > general list?
>
> See the above URL. Technically, it can come from any PMC member, not just
> a
> Mentor. It ought to come from a Mentor in terms of social interfactions,
> but if your Mentor(s) are not being responsive, any PMC member can do it.
>
> > Some PMC members have the view that any PPMC member should be able to
> > send the account setup to root to learn the system, others say it has
> > to be a mentor.
>
> See above. Any PMC mamber.
>
> The Incubator is unique in that we are the sole "umbrella" structure
> (there
> are/were others, and the ASF is deep into the process of eliminating
> them).
> Here in the Incubator, we have to navigate a duality: wanting the PPMC as
> much as possible to manage its project with guidance, and at the same time
> having to ensure PMC oversight. So although only PMC votes are binding,
> and
> some actions require PMC involvement, this is why having enough Mentors on
> a
> project to satisfy voting requirements and other PMC actions is a good
> thing.
Interesting thread.
One thing i noticed is at http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newcommitter it
says:
"If you are acting on behalf of a project which was accepted for incubation,
please get in touch with the sponsoring PMC and let them take care of
requesting any new accounts."
Do members of the sponsoring PMC have any other special powers over PPMC
members other than this being able to send off the email for new committer
account requests? Do sponsoring PMC members have binding votes on things
like releases or voting in new commiters?
...ant
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I'd like to discuss one detail of the process for new committers.
On May 30, 2007, at 10:56 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> If the nominee is already an Apache committer on another project,
> the proposer asks the incubator PMC chair to update the
> authorization file to include the nominee as a committer on the
> podling. If the nominee is not already an Apache committer, the
> incubator PMC member CC's both the Incubator PMC and the PPMC when
> sending the necessary e-mails to root. Normally, the incubator PMC
> member is a Mentor on the podling's PPMC but due to unavailability,
> the proposer can ask any incubator PMC member.
Is it really required for the incubator PMC chair to update the
authorization file? Seems like a single point of failure and a
possible source of delay. Would it be ok for *any* incubator PMC
member with write access to the authorization file to perform this
task? There are lots of incubator PMC members with sufficient karma
to do the deed.
The issue is probably not a problem on a "normal" PMC since the
number of committer requests is low. But the incubator is in charge
of dozens of podlings and it seems like this might be a bigger
problem here.
Craig
Craig Russell
DB PMC, OpenJPA PMC
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Thanks Craig. Some suggestions/comments:
On May 31, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Voting in a new committer
>
> If a developer has contributed a significant number of high-quality
> patches, is interested in continuing the contribution, and has
> demonstrated the ability to work well with others under the Apache
> guidelines, the project might vote to grant that developer commit
> access. See the ASF How it Works document, which explains
> meritocracy and roles.
Rewrite: If someone has made significant contributions and is
interested in continuing to contribute, and works well under apache
guidelines, the project might vote to grant that person commit
access. See the ASF How it Works document, which explains meritocracy
and roles.
[non-code contributions can lead to committership]
> One of the PPMC members should lead the process of accepting a new
> committer. For the purposes of this document, the proposing PPMC
> member is referred to as the proposer, and the proposed committer
> is referred to as the nominee. Discussion of a nominee should take
> place on the podling project's private (PPMC) list [normally it
> would take place on a project's private list]. If there are any
> concerns raised during the discussion, these need to be resolved so
> that there is consensus among the PPMC members as to the
> suitability of the nominee for the project and for Apache.
Add: Many projects adopt an approach where, if there are *any*
concerns, the nomination is simply tabled for a few months. Many
concerns often go away with continued participation.
> After vetting the nominee, the vote can be called on either one of
> the two places listed below (notice the balance between private and
> public lists):
>
> o The podling's private 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. This is a good approach if you are not sure
> of getting the required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members
> on the first vote. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, if
> there are not three +1 votes from incubator PMC members, the
> proposer should call a vote on the incubator PMC private list with
> a reference to the archived discussion and vote by the PPMC.
Add: Many projects that have these private votes also have a pro
forma public vote after the private vote completes, or have a welcome
thread on their public mailing list. Those are good because they make
people feel welcome.
> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote
> email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure
> of getting the required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members.
> It is embarrassing to have a public vote fail or take a very long
> time because not enough incubator PMC members vote and have to be
> solicited to vote for a committer.
[Just a note here - a lot of IPMC people feel strongly that any
voting on people in public is bad; I'm one of them. However, it is
probably still an active practice somewhere at apache and I don't
think we should quite forbid it, so it should be in this guide.]
Replace: o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the
Incubator general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
podling's developer list.
Add: The second approach is considered inferior by many, because it
is embarrassing to have a public vote like this fail or take a very
long time. Consider holding a vote on a private mailing list followed
by a public vote after consensus is evident.
> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding.
Add: However, votes from the PPMC are really important here. The
entire PPMC should show their support for this new committer
> If the vote is positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no
> binding -1 votes), the proposer offers committership to the
> nominee. If the nominee accepts the responsibility of a committer
> for the project,
Replace: "of a committer for the project with "of being a committer
on the project"
> the nominee formally becomes an Apache committer. The proposer then
> asks an Incubator PMC member to follow the documented procedures to
> complete the process.
>
> If the nominee is already an Apache committer on another project,
> the proposer asks the incubator PMC chair
Replace: "incubator PMC chair" with "incubator PMC"
> to update the authorization file to include the nominee as a
> committer on the podling. If the nominee is not already an Apache
> committer, the incubator PMC member CC's both the Incubator PMC and
> the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root. Normally, the
> incubator PMC member is a Mentor on the podling's PPMC but due to
> unavailability,
Replace: "due to unavaiability" with "if the mentors are temporarily
unavailable"
> the proposer can ask any incubator PMC member.
>
> The proposer then directs the new committer to the Apache
> developer's pages, to the Apache Incubator site, and to the
> Incubator Committers Guide for important additional information.
cheers,
Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Dion Gillard <di...@apache.org>.
Speaking of being unnecessarily hostile and confrontational, thanks for
bagging Jakarta.
FWIW, The most recent Jakarta committer votes have been conducted in
private, and what you describe is not a current Jakarta practice.
Where are Noel's comments about bad Jakarta practice? I had a quick look
through my recent emails from Noel, but couldn't find any.
Regards,
Dion
On 5/31/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> Craig L Russell wrote:
> >
> > o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
> > general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email
> > with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's
> > developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of getting the
> > required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is embarrassing
> > to have a public vote fail or take a very long time because not enough
> > incubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a
> > committer.
>
> I'm strongly against this. If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you
> missed the issue.
>
> The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational to have
> to reject a committer on a public list. So one of two things happen when
> there is a valid reason to reject the nomination - either the list becomes
> hostile and you alienate a contributor who might be voted in with simply
> another month or two of participation, or the objection goes unstated
> which
> is bad for the health and progress of the project.
>
> Voting on-list is a bad thing for the project; not a bad thing to do to
> the nominee.
>
> This is another artifact from Jakarta practice, which Noel had some
> observations about earlier today :)
>
> Bill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
dIon Gillard
Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit.
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for clarifying your position. This is a bit of a surprise,
since I thought I was just elaborating existing practice as
documented in the ppmc guide.
The section in question had been in the guides/ppmc for as long as
I've been at Apache, and I missed any dialog regarding this issue
earlier.
I'll take another stab at updating the ppmc guidance.
Thanks,
Craig
On May 31, 2007, at 1:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
>>>> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote
>>>> email
>>>> with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's
>>>> developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of
>>>> getting the
>>>> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is
>>>> embarrassing
>>>> to have a public vote fail or take a very long time because not
>>>> enough
>>>> incubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a
>>>> committer.
>>>
>>> I'm strongly against this.
>>
>> I'm sorry I can't tell what you are against, even after reading the
>> following.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that we should no ever recommend this as a
>> possible
>> option?
>
> Correct.
>
>>> If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you missed the issue.
>>>
>>> The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational
>>> to have
>>> to reject a committer on a public list.
>>
>> That's why I included "This is a good approach if you are
>> <strong>sure</strong> of getting the
>> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members".
>
> Does this mean 4 of you were sitting at a hackathon table and
> decided, "HEY,
> that's a good idea! Jeremy would make a great committer!"
>
> Did that raise a chance for others to point out why Jeremy wasn't
> accepted
> or was actually kicked from committer status on Project X, or raise
> other
> concerns? It doesn't matter if you know three people who agree,
> the point
> is that it's for all PMC members to consider. And that a public
> vote will
> undercut an honest dialog about that contributor's readiness to
> become a
> committer or PPMC member. That includes the opinions, even if they
> are
> not binding, of the PPMC members who have probably had longer
> contact with
> coders in their specific development arena.
>
> I've been there, in a very unusual way - raising an objection to a
> "good
> soul" of the ASF membership, a reader of a private PMC list, who
> had quite
> honestly not earned local-merit to that project. We are all
> adults, and
> that didn't turn out 1/10th as badly as it could have, but it
> sensitized
> me to this issue. Many with objections simply would not/did not
> speak up.
>
> I'm sure Jakarta participants can relate similarly uncomfortable
> instances.
>
>> Are you suggesting that this approach is never good?
>
> Correct.
>
> 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
>>> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email
>>> with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's
>>> developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of getting the
>>> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is embarrassing
>>> to have a public vote fail or take a very long time because not enough
>>> incubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a
>>> committer.
>>
>> I'm strongly against this.
>
> I'm sorry I can't tell what you are against, even after reading the
> following.
>
> Are you suggesting that we should no ever recommend this as a possible
> option?
Correct.
>> If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you missed the issue.
>>
>> The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational to have
>> to reject a committer on a public list.
>
> That's why I included "This is a good approach if you are
> <strong>sure</strong> of getting the
> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members".
Does this mean 4 of you were sitting at a hackathon table and decided, "HEY,
that's a good idea! Jeremy would make a great committer!"
Did that raise a chance for others to point out why Jeremy wasn't accepted
or was actually kicked from committer status on Project X, or raise other
concerns? It doesn't matter if you know three people who agree, the point
is that it's for all PMC members to consider. And that a public vote will
undercut an honest dialog about that contributor's readiness to become a
committer or PPMC member. That includes the opinions, even if they are
not binding, of the PPMC members who have probably had longer contact with
coders in their specific development arena.
I've been there, in a very unusual way - raising an objection to a "good
soul" of the ASF membership, a reader of a private PMC list, who had quite
honestly not earned local-merit to that project. We are all adults, and
that didn't turn out 1/10th as badly as it could have, but it sensitized
me to this issue. Many with objections simply would not/did not speak up.
I'm sure Jakarta participants can relate similarly uncomfortable instances.
> Are you suggesting that this approach is never good?
Correct.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Bill,
On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
>> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote
>> email
>> with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's
>> developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of getting
>> the
>> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is
>> embarrassing
>> to have a public vote fail or take a very long time because not
>> enough
>> incubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a
>> committer.
>
> I'm strongly against this.
I'm sorry I can't tell what you are against, even after reading the
following.
Are you suggesting that we should no ever recommend this as a
possible option?
Craig
> If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you missed the issue.
>
> The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational
> to have
> to reject a committer on a public list.
That's why I included "This is a good approach if you are
<strong>sure</strong> of getting the
required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members".
Are you suggesting that this approach is never good?
Regards,
Craig
> So one of two things happen when
> there is a valid reason to reject the nomination - either the list
> becomes
> hostile and you alienate a contributor who might be voted in with
> simply
> another month or two of participation, or the objection goes
> unstated which
> is bad for the health and progress of the project.
>
> Voting on-list is a bad thing for the project; not a bad thing to
> do to
> the nominee.
>
> This is another artifact from Jakarta practice, which Noel had some
> observations about earlier today :)
>
> 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email
> with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's
> developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of getting the
> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is embarrassing
> to have a public vote fail or take a very long time because not enough
> incubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a
> committer.
I'm strongly against this. If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you
missed the issue.
The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational to have
to reject a committer on a public list. So one of two things happen when
there is a valid reason to reject the nomination - either the list becomes
hostile and you alienate a contributor who might be voted in with simply
another month or two of participation, or the objection goes unstated which
is bad for the health and progress of the project.
Voting on-list is a bad thing for the project; not a bad thing to do to
the nominee.
This is another artifact from Jakarta practice, which Noel had some
observations about earlier today :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
As this seems to be an evolving Best Practice, I don't know that when
started a vote recently on two new committers for CXF that all of this was
apparent to me at the time. The current documentation at least
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html seems to indicate that we just
need a net positive of IPMC votes ("If the vote is positive...") and doesn't
seem to explicitly require a private vote*.
The current state of those votes are that we received 15 +1s for each
person, but none of the votes were from PMC members. I'm hoping that someone
can help me clarify what we should do next then. Specifically:
1. Do we need just a net positive of IPMC votes? Or 3 IPMC +1s?
2. We voted on the public list (the two committers both had great
contributions and I have/had no reason to think anyone would be -1 on them)
- even if thats not necessarily the best practice according to this document
(which we can maybe discuss in another thread) - I'm wondering what we
should do now. Should I put the [vote] to private@incubator still with some
descriptions of the things each individual has contributed and why we feel
they deserve commits?
3. Just to ensure I'm straight here - whoever sends in the account request
MUST be an IPMC member, right?
I have already pinged our mentors on the private cxf list, but didn't
receive any more votes yet, so I'm hoping we can get some guidance about
what to do next.
Thanks,
- Dan
* We've certainly done just public votes before and our mentors seemed ok
with it.
On 5/31/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Here's what I'd like to do with the ppmc guide. Change:
> Voting in a new committer
>
> If a developer has contributed a significant number of high-quality
> patches, is interested in continuing the contribution, and has
> demonstrated the ability to work well with others under the Apache
> guidelines, the project might vote to grant that developer commit
> access. See the ASF How it Works document, which explains meritocracy
> and roles.
>
> Discussion of a potential new committer should take place on the
> podling project's private list; normally it would take place on a
> project's private list. After vetting the new candidate, the vote can
> be called on either one of the two places listed below (notice the
> balance between private and public lists):
>
> The podling's private list, with notice posted to the Incubator
> private list.
> The developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator general list.
> The practice of a private discussion followed by a public, pro-forma,
> vote is re-emerging as a Best Practice for ASF projects (see this
> comprehensive discussion about these practices).
>
> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote is
> positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
> committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an Apache
> committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the documented
> procedures to complete the process, and CC both the Incubator PMC and
> the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.
>
> Please direct the new committer to the Apache developer's pages, to
> the Apache Incubator site and to the Incubator Committers Guide for
> important additional information.
>
> to:
>
> Voting in a new committer
>
> If a developer has contributed a significant number of high-quality
> patches, is interested in continuing the contribution, and has
> demonstrated the ability to work well with others under the Apache
> guidelines, the project might vote to grant that developer commit
> access. See the ASF How it Works document, which explains meritocracy
> and roles.
>
> One of the PPMC members should lead the process of accepting a new
> committer. For the purposes of this document, the proposing PPMC
> member is referred to as the proposer, and the proposed committer is
> referred to as the nominee. Discussion of a nominee should take place
> on the podling project's private (PPMC) list [normally it would take
> place on a project's private list]. If there are any concerns raised
> during the discussion, these need to be resolved so that there is
> consensus among the PPMC members as to the suitability of the nominee
> for the project and for Apache. After vetting the nominee, the vote
> can be called on either one of the two places listed below (notice
> the balance between private and public lists):
>
> o The podling's private 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. This is a good approach if you are not sure
> of getting the required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members on
> the first vote. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, if there
> are not three +1 votes from incubator PMC members, the proposer
> should call a vote on the incubator PMC private list with a reference
> to the archived discussion and vote by the PPMC.
>
> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote
> email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of
> getting the required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is
> embarrassing to have a public vote fail or take a very long time
> because not enough incubator PMC members vote and have to be
> solicited to vote for a committer.
> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote is
> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes),
> the proposer offers committership to the nominee. If the nominee
> accepts the responsibility of a committer for the project, the
> nominee formally becomes an Apache committer. The proposer then asks
> an Incubator PMC member to follow the documented procedures to
> complete the process.
>
> If the nominee is already an Apache committer on another project, the
> proposer asks the incubator PMC chair to update the authorization
> file to include the nominee as a committer on the podling. If the
> nominee is not already an Apache committer, the incubator PMC member
> CC's both the Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-
> mails to root. Normally, the incubator PMC member is a Mentor on the
> podling's PPMC but due to unavailability, the proposer can ask any
> incubator PMC member.
>
> The proposer then directs the new committer to the Apache developer's
> pages, to the Apache Incubator site, and to the Incubator Committers
> Guide for important additional information.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
> > Craig L Russell wrote:
> >> Hi Jean,
> >>
> >> On May 30, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Craig L Russell wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Carl,
> >>>>
> >>>> On May 30, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing
> >>>>> views
> >>>>> from different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and
> >>>>> who can
> >>>>> not send the account setup mail to root?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a
> >>>>> mentor have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the
> >>>>> mail to
> >>>>> root just contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC
> >>>>> members on it
> >>>>> from the general list?
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a question that I believe only infrastructure can
> >>>> answer. The
> >>>> issue is that right now, "root" has to respond only to emails
> >>>> from PMC
> >>>> chairs, and it's easy to verify that it's really the PMC chair
> >>>> sending
> >>>> the request.
> >>>
> >>> In the general PMC case, "root" responds to requests from PMC
> >>> members:
> >>> "The project PMC needs to send an email to root at apache.org
> >>> requesting
> >>> a new account to be created" [1]. It says "project PMC" not
> >>> "project PMC
> >>> chair".
> >>
> >> Thanks for the correction. I need to remind myself to read the entire
> >> documentation every time, and not rely on memory. ;-)
> >
> > I don't know of anyone who has committed all apache docs to memory
> > -- I
> > sure haven't. :-) The only reason I'm attentive to this detail is
> > as a
> > pmc chair myself I don't want account requests to be held up just
> > because I don't happen to be around.
> >
> >>> But I think the issue is that PPMCs aren't real PMCs,
> >>
> >> Right.
> >>
> >>> so for the
> >>> Incubator the request should come from a mentor.
> >>
> >> I'd prefer to say that the request must come from an incubator pmc
> >> member.
> >
> > yes; I think what matters to root is that the request is made from
> > somebody formally on the PMC, which makes this somebody easily
> > verified
> > by checking
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/committee-
> > info.txt
> > . Just like most of us haven't committed all apache docs to memory,
> > root
> > won't have committed the list of who is on which PMC to memory. We
> > want
> > to make it easy for root to process that account request.
> >
> > -jean
> >
> >
> >> But then the ppmc member who is managing the new committer
> >> process should ask an incubator pmc member to make the root request,
> >> and that incubator pmc member would naturally but not necessarily be
> >> one of the podling's mentors.
> >>
> >> Craig
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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!
>
>
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Here's what I'd like to do with the ppmc guide. Change:
Voting in a new committer
If a developer has contributed a significant number of high-quality
patches, is interested in continuing the contribution, and has
demonstrated the ability to work well with others under the Apache
guidelines, the project might vote to grant that developer commit
access. See the ASF How it Works document, which explains meritocracy
and roles.
Discussion of a potential new committer should take place on the
podling project's private list; normally it would take place on a
project's private list. After vetting the new candidate, the vote can
be called on either one of the two places listed below (notice the
balance between private and public lists):
The podling's private list, with notice posted to the Incubator
private list.
The developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator general list.
The practice of a private discussion followed by a public, pro-forma,
vote is re-emerging as a Best Practice for ASF projects (see this
comprehensive discussion about these practices).
Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote is
positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an Apache
committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the documented
procedures to complete the process, and CC both the Incubator PMC and
the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.
Please direct the new committer to the Apache developer's pages, to
the Apache Incubator site and to the Incubator Committers Guide for
important additional information.
to:
Voting in a new committer
If a developer has contributed a significant number of high-quality
patches, is interested in continuing the contribution, and has
demonstrated the ability to work well with others under the Apache
guidelines, the project might vote to grant that developer commit
access. See the ASF How it Works document, which explains meritocracy
and roles.
One of the PPMC members should lead the process of accepting a new
committer. For the purposes of this document, the proposing PPMC
member is referred to as the proposer, and the proposed committer is
referred to as the nominee. Discussion of a nominee should take place
on the podling project's private (PPMC) list [normally it would take
place on a project's private list]. If there are any concerns raised
during the discussion, these need to be resolved so that there is
consensus among the PPMC members as to the suitability of the nominee
for the project and for Apache. After vetting the nominee, the vote
can be called on either one of the two places listed below (notice
the balance between private and public lists):
o The podling's private 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. This is a good approach if you are not sure
of getting the required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members on
the first vote. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, if there
are not three +1 votes from incubator PMC members, the proposer
should call a vote on the incubator PMC private list with a reference
to the archived discussion and vote by the PPMC.
o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote
email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
podling's developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of
getting the required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is
embarrassing to have a public vote fail or take a very long time
because not enough incubator PMC members vote and have to be
solicited to vote for a committer.
Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote is
positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes),
the proposer offers committership to the nominee. If the nominee
accepts the responsibility of a committer for the project, the
nominee formally becomes an Apache committer. The proposer then asks
an Incubator PMC member to follow the documented procedures to
complete the process.
If the nominee is already an Apache committer on another project, the
proposer asks the incubator PMC chair to update the authorization
file to include the nominee as a committer on the podling. If the
nominee is not already an Apache committer, the incubator PMC member
CC's both the Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-
mails to root. Normally, the incubator PMC member is a Mentor on the
podling's PPMC but due to unavailability, the proposer can ask any
incubator PMC member.
The proposer then directs the new committer to the Apache developer's
pages, to the Apache Incubator site, and to the Incubator Committers
Guide for important additional information.
Craig
On May 30, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> On May 30, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Carl,
>>>>
>>>> On May 30, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing
>>>>> views
>>>>> from different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and
>>>>> who can
>>>>> not send the account setup mail to root?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a
>>>>> mentor have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the
>>>>> mail to
>>>>> root just contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC
>>>>> members on it
>>>>> from the general list?
>>>>
>>>> This is a question that I believe only infrastructure can
>>>> answer. The
>>>> issue is that right now, "root" has to respond only to emails
>>>> from PMC
>>>> chairs, and it's easy to verify that it's really the PMC chair
>>>> sending
>>>> the request.
>>>
>>> In the general PMC case, "root" responds to requests from PMC
>>> members:
>>> "The project PMC needs to send an email to root at apache.org
>>> requesting
>>> a new account to be created" [1]. It says "project PMC" not
>>> "project PMC
>>> chair".
>>
>> Thanks for the correction. I need to remind myself to read the entire
>> documentation every time, and not rely on memory. ;-)
>
> I don't know of anyone who has committed all apache docs to memory
> -- I
> sure haven't. :-) The only reason I'm attentive to this detail is
> as a
> pmc chair myself I don't want account requests to be held up just
> because I don't happen to be around.
>
>>> But I think the issue is that PPMCs aren't real PMCs,
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> so for the
>>> Incubator the request should come from a mentor.
>>
>> I'd prefer to say that the request must come from an incubator pmc
>> member.
>
> yes; I think what matters to root is that the request is made from
> somebody formally on the PMC, which makes this somebody easily
> verified
> by checking
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/committee-
> info.txt
> . Just like most of us haven't committed all apache docs to memory,
> root
> won't have committed the list of who is on which PMC to memory. We
> want
> to make it easy for root to process that account request.
>
> -jean
>
>
>> But then the ppmc member who is managing the new committer
>> process should ask an incubator pmc member to make the root request,
>> and that incubator pmc member would naturally but not necessarily be
>> one of the podling's mentors.
>>
>> Craig
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Carl,
>>>
>>> On May 30, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>>>
>>>> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views
>>>> from different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who can
>>>> not send the account setup mail to root?"
>>>>
>>>> Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a
>>>> mentor have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the mail to
>>>> root just contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC members on it
>>>> from the general list?
>>>
>>> This is a question that I believe only infrastructure can answer. The
>>> issue is that right now, "root" has to respond only to emails from PMC
>>> chairs, and it's easy to verify that it's really the PMC chair sending
>>> the request.
>>
>> In the general PMC case, "root" responds to requests from PMC members:
>> "The project PMC needs to send an email to root at apache.org requesting
>> a new account to be created" [1]. It says "project PMC" not "project PMC
>> chair".
>
> Thanks for the correction. I need to remind myself to read the entire
> documentation every time, and not rely on memory. ;-)
I don't know of anyone who has committed all apache docs to memory -- I
sure haven't. :-) The only reason I'm attentive to this detail is as a
pmc chair myself I don't want account requests to be held up just
because I don't happen to be around.
>> But I think the issue is that PPMCs aren't real PMCs,
>
> Right.
>
>> so for the
>> Incubator the request should come from a mentor.
>
> I'd prefer to say that the request must come from an incubator pmc
> member.
yes; I think what matters to root is that the request is made from
somebody formally on the PMC, which makes this somebody easily verified
by checking
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/committee-info.txt
. Just like most of us haven't committed all apache docs to memory, root
won't have committed the list of who is on which PMC to memory. We want
to make it easy for root to process that account request.
-jean
> But then the ppmc member who is managing the new committer
> process should ask an incubator pmc member to make the root request,
> and that incubator pmc member would naturally but not necessarily be
> one of the podling's mentors.
>
> Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Jean,
On May 30, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>> On May 30, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>>
>>> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views
>>> from different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and
>>> who can
>>> not send the account setup mail to root?"
>>>
>>> Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a
>>> mentor have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the
>>> mail to
>>> root just contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC members
>>> on it
>>> from the general list?
>>
>> This is a question that I believe only infrastructure can answer. The
>> issue is that right now, "root" has to respond only to emails
>> from PMC
>> chairs, and it's easy to verify that it's really the PMC chair
>> sending
>> the request.
>
> In the general PMC case, "root" responds to requests from PMC members:
> "The project PMC needs to send an email to root at apache.org
> requesting
> a new account to be created" [1]. It says "project PMC" not
> "project PMC
> chair".
Thanks for the correction. I need to remind myself to read the entire
documentation every time, and not rely on memory. ;-)
>
> But I think the issue is that PPMCs aren't real PMCs,
Right.
> so for the
> Incubator the request should come from a mentor.
I'd prefer to say that the request must come from an incubator pmc
member. But then the ppmc member who is managing the new committer
process should ask an incubator pmc member to make the root request,
and that incubator pmc member would naturally but not necessarily be
one of the podling's mentors.
Craig
>
> -jean
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newcommitter
>
>>>
>>> Some PMC members have the view that any PPMC member should be
>>> able to
>>> send the account setup to root to learn the system, others say
>>> it has
>>> to be a mentor. Cliff has kindly taken care of most of these
>>> mail for
>>> us so far so this is more theoretical, however having clarity on
>>> this
>>> in the document would also be good as I have wondered about the
>>> reasoning behind this practice. If the mail to root has to be cc-ed
>>> to general list and PPMC and has 3 PMC votes on it then it would
>>> seem to me that it could be send by anyone.
>>
>>
>> If anyone can send the request, then "root" has to do more work by
>> verifying the vote thread, following the link provided in the
>> message,
>> to make sure that the request is valid.
>>
>> I agree that it's better for the PPMC members themselves to be
>> able to
>> make the request to root, but I'd have to leave it up to
>> infrastructure
>> to decide if they can handle it.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>>
>>> Carl.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
>>>> I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
>>>> distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
>>>>
>>>> The new text says
>>>>
>>>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the
>>>> vote is
>>>> positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
>>>> committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an
>>>> Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the
>>>> documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the
>>>> Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails
>>>> to root.
>>>>
>>>> I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
>>>> reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>> On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed
>>>>>> committer's
>>>>>> contributions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 != +0
>>>>>
>>>>>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>>>>>> binding.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
>>>>> elsewhere it
>>>>> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong
>>>>> were
>>>>> PMC to
>>>>> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
>>>>> There is
>>>>> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a
>>>>> recognized
>>>>> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only
>>>>> PMC votes
>>>>> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can
>>>>> other
>>>>> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC
>>>>> votes are
>>>>> binding.
>>>>> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta
>>>>> Committer
>>>>> who
>>>>> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For
>>>>> years
>>>>> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
>>>>> is the
>>>>> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects
>>>>> that
>>>>> didn't go
>>>>> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
>>>>>
>>>>>> the documentation link above is out of date.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- 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!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> 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!
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
>> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views
>> from different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who can
>> not send the account setup mail to root?"
>>
>> Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a
>> mentor have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the mail to
>> root just contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC members on it
>> from the general list?
>
> This is a question that I believe only infrastructure can answer. The
> issue is that right now, "root" has to respond only to emails from PMC
> chairs, and it's easy to verify that it's really the PMC chair sending
> the request.
In the general PMC case, "root" responds to requests from PMC members:
"The project PMC needs to send an email to root at apache.org requesting
a new account to be created" [1]. It says "project PMC" not "project PMC
chair".
But I think the issue is that PPMCs aren't real PMCs, so for the
Incubator the request should come from a mentor.
-jean
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newcommitter
>>
>> Some PMC members have the view that any PPMC member should be able to
>> send the account setup to root to learn the system, others say it has
>> to be a mentor. Cliff has kindly taken care of most of these mail for
>> us so far so this is more theoretical, however having clarity on this
>> in the document would also be good as I have wondered about the
>> reasoning behind this practice. If the mail to root has to be cc-ed
>> to general list and PPMC and has 3 PMC votes on it then it would
>> seem to me that it could be send by anyone.
>
>
> If anyone can send the request, then "root" has to do more work by
> verifying the vote thread, following the link provided in the message,
> to make sure that the request is valid.
>
> I agree that it's better for the PPMC members themselves to be able to
> make the request to root, but I'd have to leave it up to infrastructure
> to decide if they can handle it.
>
> Craig
>
>>
>> Carl.
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
>>> I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
>>> distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
>>>
>>> The new text says
>>>
>>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote is
>>> positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
>>> committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an
>>> Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the
>>> documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the
>>> Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.
>>>
>>> I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
>>> reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
>>>>> contributions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1 != +0
>>>>
>>>>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>>>>> binding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
>>>> elsewhere it
>>>> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were
>>>> PMC to
>>>> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
>>>> There is
>>>> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a
>>>> recognized
>>>> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only
>>>> PMC votes
>>>> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can
>>>> other
>>>> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes are
>>>> binding.
>>>> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
>>>>
>>>> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta Committer
>>>> who
>>>> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For
>>>> years
>>>> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
>>>> is the
>>>> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that
>>>> didn't go
>>>> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
>>>>
>>>>> the documentation link above is out of date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
>>>>
>>>> --- 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!
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
>> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views
>> from different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who can
>> not send the account setup mail to root?"
>>
>> Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a
>> mentor have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the mail to
>> root just contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC members on it
>> from the general list?
>
> This is a question that I believe only infrastructure can answer. The
> issue is that right now, "root" has to respond only to emails from PMC
> chairs, and it's easy to verify that it's really the PMC chair sending
> the request.
>
>>
>> Some PMC members have the view that any PPMC member should be able to
>> send the account setup to root to learn the system, others say it has
>> to be a mentor. Cliff has kindly taken care of most of these mail for
>> us so far so this is more theoretical, however having clarity on this
>> in the document would also be good as I have wondered about the
>> reasoning behind this practice. If the mail to root has to be cc-ed
>> to general list and PPMC and has 3 PMC votes on it then it would
>> seem to me that it could be send by anyone.
>
> If anyone can send the request, then "root" has to do more work by
> verifying the vote thread, following the link provided in the message,
> to make sure that the request is valid.
>
> I agree that it's better for the PPMC members themselves to be able to
> make the request to root, but I'd have to leave it up to
> infrastructure to decide if they can handle it.
>
Craig,
Thanks, that is a meaningful/practical reason.
Carl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Carl,
On May 30, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views
> from different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who
> can not send the account setup mail to root?"
>
> Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a
> mentor have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the mail
> to root just contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC members
> on it from the general list?
This is a question that I believe only infrastructure can answer. The
issue is that right now, "root" has to respond only to emails from
PMC chairs, and it's easy to verify that it's really the PMC chair
sending the request.
>
> Some PMC members have the view that any PPMC member should be able
> to send the account setup to root to learn the system, others say
> it has to be a mentor. Cliff has kindly taken care of most of these
> mail for us so far so this is more theoretical, however having
> clarity on this in the document would also be good as I have
> wondered about the reasoning behind this practice. If the mail to
> root has to be cc-ed to general list and PPMC and has 3 PMC votes
> on it then it would seem to me that it could be send by anyone.
If anyone can send the request, then "root" has to do more work by
verifying the vote thread, following the link provided in the
message, to make sure that the request is valid.
I agree that it's better for the PPMC members themselves to be able
to make the request to root, but I'd have to leave it up to
infrastructure to decide if they can handle it.
Craig
>
> Carl.
>
>
>
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
>> I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
>> distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
>>
>> The new text says
>>
>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote
>> is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
>> committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an
>> Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the
>> documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the
>> Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to
>> root.
>>
>> I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
>> reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>
>>> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
>>>> contributions.
>>>
>>> +1 != +0
>>>
>>>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>>>> binding.
>>>
>>> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
>>> elsewhere it
>>> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong
>>> were PMC to
>>> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
>>> There is
>>> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
>>>
>>> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a
>>> recognized
>>> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only
>>> PMC votes
>>> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can
>>> other
>>> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes
>>> are binding.
>>> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
>>>
>>> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta
>>> Committer who
>>> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For
>>> years
>>> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
>>> is the
>>> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects
>>> that didn't go
>>> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
>>>
>>>> the documentation link above is out of date.
>>>
>>> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
>>>
>>> --- 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!
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 5/30/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> behind this practice. If the mail to root has to be cc-ed to general
> list and PPMC and has 3 PMC votes on it then it would seem to me that
> it could be send by anyone.
I can only think of one reason: private@incubator is not accessible to
PPMC members that are not IPMC members. If the commiter acceptance
vote is held in private, there is no way for a PPMC member to provide
a link to that vote.
That said, I think letting PPMC members send the message to root is
great for educational purposes and lets the podling integrate more
into Apache ways.
Martijn
--
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views from
> different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who can not
> send the account setup mail to root?"
The view that counts is from
http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newcommitter. Please note: that is not
an Incubator URL. These are ASF-wide documents, and everyone should become
familar with the contents under http://www.apache.org/dev.
> Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a mentor
> have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the mail to root just
> contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC members on it from the
> general list?
See the above URL. Technically, it can come from any PMC member, not just a
Mentor. It ought to come from a Mentor in terms of social interfactions,
but if your Mentor(s) are not being responsive, any PMC member can do it.
> Some PMC members have the view that any PPMC member should be able to
> send the account setup to root to learn the system, others say it has
> to be a mentor.
See above. Any PMC mamber.
The Incubator is unique in that we are the sole "umbrella" structure (there
are/were others, and the ASF is deep into the process of eliminating them).
Here in the Incubator, we have to navigate a duality: wanting the PPMC as
much as possible to manage its project with guidance, and at the same time
having to ensure PMC oversight. So although only PMC votes are binding, and
some actions require PMC involvement, this is why having enough Mentors on a
project to satisfy voting requirements and other PMC actions is a good
thing.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views from
different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who can not
send the account setup mail to root?"
Given each new committer vote will have 3 PMC votes, why does a mentor
have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the mail to root just
contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC members on it from the
general list?
Some PMC members have the view that any PPMC member should be able to
send the account setup to root to learn the system, others say it has to
be a mentor. Cliff has kindly taken care of most of these mail for us so
far so this is more theoretical, however having clarity on this in the
document would also be good as I have wondered about the reasoning
behind this practice. If the mail to root has to be cc-ed to general
list and PPMC and has 3 PMC votes on it then it would seem to me that
it could be send by anyone.
Carl.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
> I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
> distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
>
> The new text says
>
> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote is
> positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
> committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an Apache
> committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the documented
> procedures to complete the process, and CC both the Incubator PMC and
> the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.
>
> I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
> reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
>
> Craig
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
>>> contributions.
>>
>> +1 != +0
>>
>>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>>> binding.
>>
>> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
>> elsewhere it
>> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were
>> PMC to
>> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
>> There is
>> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
>>
>> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a recognized
>> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only PMC
>> votes
>> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can other
>> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes are
>> binding.
>> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
>>
>> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta Committer who
>> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For years
>> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta is the
>> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that
>> didn't go
>> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
>>
>>> the documentation link above is out of date.
>>
>> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
>>
>> --- 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!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>> I don't know all the communities around ASF, but what I have seen is
>> that the "acceptance"/"decline" happens after the public vote. Entries
>> to PMCs seems more like "private vote" -> accept/decline -> "welcome"
>> in the communities I know of.
>>
>> Mind you, my own opinion in the matter differs from how things are
>> done, for instance; IMHO either the vote is public OR private, and if
>> the latter then don't have the charade on the public list. That would
>> simplify things at Incubator as well.
>>
>> 1. [Discuss] on private@podling
>> 2. [Vote] on private@podling
>> 3. [Vote] on private@incubator
>> 4. [Accept/Decline] in private mail
>> 5. [Announce/Welcome] in public@podling
>
> +1
Ditto to everything above. The 2 suggestions, we can point out the 3rd
bullet can be lazy concensus if 3 binding +1's were already cast in the
podling (by incubator PMC members) - that Vote essentially becomes a
Notice to the private@incubator list (for them to raise an objection if
absolutely necessary). If 72 hours pass with no objection, we can call
them elected by the PMC votes on the podling list.
The other suggestion - you could renumber these based from 0, since the
[discuss] is the one completely optional thing in the list, and the
process of discussing different potential committers should be an ongoing
dialog on the podling's private list :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2007 07:48, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Hi Niclas,
>>
>> There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of
>> voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to
>> become a committer. This would have to be after the private votes are
>> done and before the public vote. So after the nominee accepts, they
>> suddenly see a [vote] thread regarding their candidacy on the dev
>> list and wonder what *that* is about.
>>
>> I think a public "welcome to the new committer" would be sufficient
>> "feel good" instead of the phony public vote.
>>
>
> I don't know all the communities around ASF, but what I have seen is that
> the "acceptance"/"decline" happens after the public vote. Entries to PMCs
> seems more like "private vote" -> accept/decline -> "welcome" in the
> communities I know of.
>
> Mind you, my own opinion in the matter differs from how things are done, for
> instance; IMHO either the vote is public OR private, and if the latter then
> don't have the charade on the public list. That would simplify things at
> Incubator as well.
>
> 1. [Discuss] on private@podling
> 2. [Vote] on private@podling
> 3. [Vote] on private@incubator
> 4. [Accept/Decline] in private mail
> 5. [Announce/Welcome] in public@podling
>
+1
-> richard
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Niclas,
On Jun 4, 2007, at 6:04 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2007 07:48, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Hi Niclas,
>>
>> There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of
>> voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to
>> become a committer. This would have to be after the private votes are
>> done and before the public vote. So after the nominee accepts, they
>> suddenly see a [vote] thread regarding their candidacy on the dev
>> list and wonder what *that* is about.
>>
>> I think a public "welcome to the new committer" would be sufficient
>> "feel good" instead of the phony public vote.
>
> I don't know all the communities around ASF, but what I have seen
> is that
> the "acceptance"/"decline" happens after the public vote. Entries
> to PMCs
> seems more like "private vote" -> accept/decline -> "welcome" in the
> communities I know of.
>
> Mind you, my own opinion in the matter differs from how things are
> done, for
> instance; IMHO either the vote is public OR private, and if the
> latter then
> don't have the charade on the public list. That would simplify
> things at
> Incubator as well.
>
> 1. [Discuss] on private@podling
> 2. [Vote] on private@podling
> 3. [Vote] on private@incubator
> 4. [Accept/Decline] in private mail
> 5. [Announce/Welcome] in public@podling
This is what I proposed to put into the guide. So at least two of us
agree.
But I also put the "not necessarily recommended" approach into the
guide for completeness. So there should not be any big issues.
Craig
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 07:48, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Niclas,
>
> There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of
> voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to
> become a committer. This would have to be after the private votes are
> done and before the public vote. So after the nominee accepts, they
> suddenly see a [vote] thread regarding their candidacy on the dev
> list and wonder what *that* is about.
>
> I think a public "welcome to the new committer" would be sufficient
> "feel good" instead of the phony public vote.
I don't know all the communities around ASF, but what I have seen is that
the "acceptance"/"decline" happens after the public vote. Entries to PMCs
seems more like "private vote" -> accept/decline -> "welcome" in the
communities I know of.
Mind you, my own opinion in the matter differs from how things are done, for
instance; IMHO either the vote is public OR private, and if the latter then
don't have the charade on the public list. That would simplify things at
Incubator as well.
1. [Discuss] on private@podling
2. [Vote] on private@podling
3. [Vote] on private@incubator
4. [Accept/Decline] in private mail
5. [Announce/Welcome] in public@podling
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Niclas,
There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of
voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to
become a committer. This would have to be after the private votes are
done and before the public vote. So after the nominee accepts, they
suddenly see a [vote] thread regarding their candidacy on the dev
list and wonder what *that* is about.
I think a public "welcome to the new committer" would be sufficient
"feel good" instead of the phony public vote.
Craig
On May 30, 2007, at 6:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 20:59, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> I like the second option. thanks for bringing this up.
>
> I don't. It assumes that the [Discuss] thread was all dandy. If
> not, then the
> vote passes in public and the Incubator PMC will become the 'bad
> guys who
> doesn't let X in'.
>
> Looking at ASF at large, one of the more common ways of committer
> voting is;
>
> 1. [Discuss] on private@
> 2. [Vote] on private@
> 3. [Vote] in public@.
>
> How about teaching that is the process, we inject one extra step
> for podlings
> for legal reasons (if they now exist)?
>
> 1. [Discuss] on private@podling
> 2. [Vote] on private@podling
> 3. [Vote] on private@incubator
> 4. [Vote] in public@podling
>
> IMHO, IPMC members only need to browse the Discuss & Vote threads a
> couple of
> minutes to give the heads-up. And if the mentors don't cry "No"
> this should
> be a swift exercise.
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
>> On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>> I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred
>>> to by
>>> the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
>>> TLP is best practice for the incubator.
>>>
>>> The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator
>>> PMC
>>> members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
>>> get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
>>>
>>> But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC
>>> processes and voting based on the PPMC vote process.
>>>
>>> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
>>> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
>>> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
>>> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
>>> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
>>> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
>>>
>>> So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
>>> for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
>>> PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator
>>> PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC.
>>> [Only the final vote is binding.]
>>>
>>> Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC
>>> private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a
>>> formal
>>> [VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and
>>> vote of the community.
>>>
>>> This way, the incubator PMC can see that the PPMC "gets" the
>>> Apache Way.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On May 30, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>> Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
>>>> I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
>>>> distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
>>>>
>>>> The new text says
>>>>
>>>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote
>>>> is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
>>>> committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an
>>>> Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the
>>>> documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the
>>>> Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to
>>>> root.
>>>>
>>>> I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
>>>> reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>> On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>>> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>>>>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed
>>>>>> committer's
>>>>>> contributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 != +0
>>>>>
>>>>>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>>>>>> binding.
>>>>>
>>>>> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
>>>>> elsewhere it
>>>>> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were
>>>>> PMC to
>>>>> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
>>>>> There is
>>>>> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a
>>>>> recognized
>>>>> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only
>>>>> PMC votes
>>>>> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can
>>>>> other
>>>>> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes
>>>>> are binding.
>>>>> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta
>>>>> Committer who
>>>>> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For
>>>>> years
>>>>> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
>>>>> is the
>>>>> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that
>>>>> didn't go
>>>>> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
>>>>>
>>>>>> the documentation link above is out of date.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- 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!
>>>
>>> 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!
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
DB PMC, OpenJPA PMC
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 20:59, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> I like the second option. thanks for bringing this up.
I don't. It assumes that the [Discuss] thread was all dandy. If not, then the
vote passes in public and the Incubator PMC will become the 'bad guys who
doesn't let X in'.
Looking at ASF at large, one of the more common ways of committer voting is;
1. [Discuss] on private@
2. [Vote] on private@
3. [Vote] in public@.
How about teaching that is the process, we inject one extra step for podlings
for legal reasons (if they now exist)?
1. [Discuss] on private@podling
2. [Vote] on private@podling
3. [Vote] on private@incubator
4. [Vote] in public@podling
IMHO, IPMC members only need to browse the Discuss & Vote threads a couple of
minutes to give the heads-up. And if the mentors don't cry "No" this should
be a swift exercise.
Cheers
Niclas
> On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by
> > the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
> > TLP is best practice for the incubator.
> >
> > The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC
> > members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
> > get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
> >
> > But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC
> > processes and voting based on the PPMC vote process.
> >
> > Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
> > new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
> > discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
> > On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
> > that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
> > have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
> >
> > So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
> > for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
> > PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator
> > PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC.
> > [Only the final vote is binding.]
> >
> > Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC
> > private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a formal
> > [VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and
> > vote of the community.
> >
> > This way, the incubator PMC can see that the PPMC "gets" the Apache Way.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > On May 30, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> > > Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
> > > I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
> > > distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
> > >
> > > The new text says
> > >
> > > Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote
> > > is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
> > > committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an
> > > Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the
> > > documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the
> > > Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.
> > >
> > > I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
> > > reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > >> Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > >>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
> > >>> contributions.
> > >>
> > >> +1 != +0
> > >>
> > >>> I always thought (and the documentation at
> > >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
> > >>> binding.
> > >>
> > >> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
> > >> elsewhere it
> > >> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were
> > >> PMC to
> > >> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
> > >> There is
> > >> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
> > >>
> > >> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a
> > >> recognized
> > >> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only
> > >> PMC votes
> > >> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can
> > >> other
> > >> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes
> > >> are binding.
> > >> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
> > >>
> > >> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta
> > >> Committer who
> > >> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For
> > >> years
> > >> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
> > >> is the
> > >> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that
> > >> didn't go
> > >> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
> > >>
> > >>> the documentation link above is out of date.
> > >>
> > >> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
> > >>
> > >> --- 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!
> >
> > 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!
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> How could a PPMC participate in a vote on the Incubator PMC's private
>>> list?
>>
>> It cannot, and I don't believe I implied that this would be the case.
>> The idea is that the PPMC, with the help of the Mentors, conducts a
>> discussion and a vote just as they would if they were a TLP PMC. What
>> we're trying to do in the incubator is to give the PPMC the
>> opportunity to act like a PMC and this committer discussion and vote
>> is one of the most important things to learn.
>
> How could they learn anything when some of the most important decisions
> were made behind closed doors (i.e., on the Incubator private list?)
Every ASF member has access to every private list (little known trivia,
but it's pretty obvious when you consider the role of the foundation,
through it's members, is to oversee the whole of the foundation.)
Of course, there's the edge case of PMC members who aren't members, but
let's not rehash that today :)
>>> Even if the PPMC's private list were CC'd on the initial vote
>>> there would be no way for the PPMC members to know whether they were
>>> being CC'd on all the relevant discussions and given sufficient
>>> opportunity to address any concerns.
>>
>> I guess this would be the responsibility of the Mentors to carry any
>> feedback from the incubator PMC vote. During the incubator PMC vote,
>> the Mentors will be active in responding to any concerns of the
>> incubator PMC.
>
> That sounds backwards. Aren't each podling's mentors supposed to
> represent the Incubator PMC on the podling's PPMC? Doesn't the PMC
> trust the mentors to adequately represent them? It seems to me that
> if a mentor has reason to be concerned about a committer vote they
> can bring it up on the Incubator PMC list. Otherwise there should
> be no reason to involve it. If there are Incubator PMC members who
> are concerned about a podling's ability to make these type of
> decisions despite the oversight of its mentors they have the option
> of subscribing to the PPMC list or even becoming mentors themselves.
> Otherwise, it would be hard to argue that they have the insight
> necessary to make these types of fundamental decisions for the PPMC.
Well, this is a two way street. As members, we represent our podlings
to the PMC, and represent the PMC to our podlings. Of course every
PMC member is welcome to go back through the public/private archives
themselves, but it's much quicker when the mentors provide a summary.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> [...]
>>> So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
>>> for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
>>> PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator
>>> PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC.
>>> [Only the final vote is binding.]
>>
>> How could a PPMC participate in a vote on the Incubator PMC's private
>> list?
>
> It cannot, and I don't believe I implied that this would be the case.
> The idea is that the PPMC, with the help of the Mentors, conducts a
> discussion and a vote just as they would if they were a TLP PMC. What
> we're trying to do in the incubator is to give the PPMC the opportunity
> to act like a PMC and this committer discussion and vote is one of the
> most important things to learn.
How could they learn anything when some of the most important decisions
were made behind closed doors (i.e., on the Incubator private list?)
>
>> Even if the PPMC's private list were CC'd on the initial vote
>> there would be no way for the PPMC members to know whether they were
>> being CC'd on all the relevant discussions and given sufficient
>> opportunity to address any concerns.
>
> I guess this would be the responsibility of the Mentors to carry any
> feedback from the incubator PMC vote. During the incubator PMC vote, the
> Mentors will be active in responding to any concerns of the incubator PMC.
That sounds backwards. Aren't each podling's mentors supposed to
represent the Incubator PMC on the podling's PPMC? Doesn't the PMC
trust the mentors to adequately represent them? It seems to me that
if a mentor has reason to be concerned about a committer vote they
can bring it up on the Incubator PMC list. Otherwise there should
be no reason to involve it. If there are Incubator PMC members who
are concerned about a podling's ability to make these type of
decisions despite the oversight of its mentors they have the option
of subscribing to the PPMC list or even becoming mentors themselves.
Otherwise, it would be hard to argue that they have the insight
necessary to make these types of fundamental decisions for the PPMC.
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Martin,
On May 30, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
> [...]
>> So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe
>> Bleau for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE]
>> on the PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private
>> incubator PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of
>> the PPMC. [Only the final vote is binding.]
>
> How could a PPMC participate in a vote on the Incubator PMC's private
> list?
It cannot, and I don't believe I implied that this would be the case.
The idea is that the PPMC, with the help of the Mentors, conducts a
discussion and a vote just as they would if they were a TLP PMC. What
we're trying to do in the incubator is to give the PPMC the
opportunity to act like a PMC and this committer discussion and vote
is one of the most important things to learn.
> Even if the PPMC's private list were CC'd on the initial vote
> there would be no way for the PPMC members to know whether they were
> being CC'd on all the relevant discussions and given sufficient
> opportunity to address any concerns.
I guess this would be the responsibility of the Mentors to carry any
feedback from the incubator PMC vote. During the incubator PMC vote,
the Mentors will be active in responding to any concerns of the
incubator PMC.
Craig
>
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
[...]
> So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for
> committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the PPMC
> private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator PMC list
> with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC. [Only the final
> vote is binding.]
How could a PPMC participate in a vote on the Incubator PMC's private
list? Even if the PPMC's private list were CC'd on the initial vote
there would be no way for the PPMC members to know whether they were
being CC'd on all the relevant discussions and given sufficient
opportunity to address any concerns.
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Dims,
It wasn't completely clear from my message, but I intended this to be
a choice of the PPMC (with guidance by the Mentors) to hold the votes
either in private or in public.
I'd like to get others' input as well on whether the guidance here
should be
1. private vote on PPMC then private vote on incubator PMC
2. public vote on dev then public vote on incubator general
3. PPMC/Mentors decide which of 1 or 2 to follow. This might be a
podling "policy" or decided on each [DISCUSS] of a new committer.
Craig
On May 30, 2007, at 5:59 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> I like the second option. thanks for bringing this up.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by
>> the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
>> TLP is best practice for the incubator.
>>
>> The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC
>> members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
>> get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
>>
>> But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC
>> processes and voting based on the PPMC vote process.
>>
>> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
>> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
>> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
>> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
>> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
>> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
>>
>> So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
>> for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
>> PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator
>> PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC.
>> [Only the final vote is binding.]
>>
>> Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC
>> private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a formal
>> [VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and
>> vote of the community.
>>
>> This way, the incubator PMC can see that the PPMC "gets" the
>> Apache Way.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On May 30, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> > Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
>> > I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
>> > distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
>> >
>> > The new text says
>> >
>> > Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote
>> > is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
>> > committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an
>> > Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the
>> > documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the
>> > Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to
>> root.
>> >
>> > I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
>> > reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed
>> committer's
>> >>> contributions.
>> >>
>> >> +1 != +0
>> >>
>> >>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>> >>> binding.
>> >>
>> >> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
>> >> elsewhere it
>> >> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were
>> >> PMC to
>> >> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
>> >> There is
>> >> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a
>> >> recognized
>> >> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only
>> >> PMC votes
>> >> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can
>> >> other
>> >> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes
>> >> are binding.
>> >> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
>> >>
>> >> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta
>> >> Committer who
>> >> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For
>> >> years
>> >> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
>> >> is the
>> >> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that
>> >> didn't go
>> >> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
>> >>
>> >>> the documentation link above is out of date.
>> >>
>> >> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
>> >>
>> >> --- 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!
>> >
>>
>> 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!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
I like the second option. thanks for bringing this up.
thanks,
dims
On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by
> the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
> TLP is best practice for the incubator.
>
> The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC
> members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
> get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
>
> But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC
> processes and voting based on the PPMC vote process.
>
> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
>
> So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
> for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
> PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator
> PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC.
> [Only the final vote is binding.]
>
> Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC
> private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a formal
> [VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and
> vote of the community.
>
> This way, the incubator PMC can see that the PPMC "gets" the Apache Way.
>
> Craig
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> > Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
> > I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
> > distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
> >
> > The new text says
> >
> > Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote
> > is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
> > committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an
> > Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the
> > documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the
> > Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.
> >
> > I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
> > reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >
> >> Yoav Shapira wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
> >>> contributions.
> >>
> >> +1 != +0
> >>
> >>> I always thought (and the documentation at
> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
> >>> binding.
> >>
> >> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
> >> elsewhere it
> >> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were
> >> PMC to
> >> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
> >> There is
> >> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
> >>
> >> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a
> >> recognized
> >> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only
> >> PMC votes
> >> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can
> >> other
> >> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes
> >> are binding.
> >> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
> >>
> >> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta
> >> Committer who
> >> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For
> >> years
> >> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
> >> is the
> >> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that
> >> didn't go
> >> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
> >>
> >>> the documentation link above is out of date.
> >>
> >> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
> >>
> >> --- 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!
> >
>
> 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!
>
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
On 30/05/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Hi Yoav,
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> >> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
> >> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
> >> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
> >> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
> >> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
> >> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
> >
> > You're not the first one to have mentioned this approach. The thing
> > that troubles me in this approach is that it distorts the meaning of
> > +1/0/+1 votes with respect to committership.
> >
> > To me, a +1 vote on someone becoming a committer means I've personally
> > reviewed the person's contributions (in terms of code, mailing list
> > activity, etc.) in decent depth.
>
> In a TLP PMC, I agree that a +1 should mean due diligence. PMC
> members should be aware of contributions made by non-committers, and
> the [DISCUSSION] before the [VOTE] should uncover any issues.
>
> Which implies that due diligence really should be done during
> [DISCUSS] and not wait until [VOTE].
> >
> > It does NOT mean I trust a bunch of other people to form my opinion
> > for me. If, for whatever reason (for example a long holiday weekend),
> > I haven't had a chance to look at the person's history, and a vote is
> > required right now, a 0 seems more correct.
>
> For a TLP PMC, I agree. But if there is some reason to delay the
> vote, I don't have any trouble with an incubator PMC member
> requesting an extension.
> >
> > Voting +1 explicitly without due diligence just so someone can reach a
> > 3 +1 bar seems wrong to me. I guess there do exist other options,
> > like asking for the vote to be open longer, saying explicitly that my
> > +1 is for the process and the PMC without reviewing the person, and
> > others. So maybe this is soluble and OK after all. I'm just thinking
> > out loud here...
>
> My main argument here is that the incubator is not a normal project.
> The role of the incubator PMC is to guide podlings in the way of
> Apache. And a big part of the way is learning how to grant commit
> privileges to people who demonstrate to the project that they deserve
> it.
>
> I'm also very aware that most incubator PMC members simply don't have
> the time to perform due diligence on requests for commit access for
> podlings. So what I'm proposing allows incubator PMC members to
> perform due diligence if they want to, or simply provide oversight of
> the PPMC's actions on new committers.
>
> Craig
>
> >
> > Yoav
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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!
What we need is two public lists that can be referenced so that the
incubator PMC can be satisfied that the podling is adhering to policy.
To adapt the suggestion by Niclas, I would say that step 3 be
performed on the public incubator list. As the private@podling list is
also private a link cannot be made to the discussion so the three
active mentors of the project are the only ones that would be able to
approve the process carried out by the PPMC (Unless IPMC members can
browse the private lists). It is unlikely that this process would be
denied on the public list as the three mentors should have addressed
any problems on the private@podling list. This of course requires that
all podlings have three mentors and that they are actively guiding
their podling, not an unreasonable request IMHO.
This would then give the PPMC authority to carry out the [Vote] on the
public@podling list and a reference to include on the email to root
to verify that the work done on private@podling is in line with 'The
Apache Way' even though it cannot be referenced.
1. [Discuss] on private@podling
2. [Vote] on private@podling
3. [Vote] [Process Approval] on public@incubator
4. [Vote] in public@podling
Regards
--
Martin Ritchie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Yoav,
On May 30, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
>> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
>> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
>> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
>> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
>> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
>
> You're not the first one to have mentioned this approach. The thing
> that troubles me in this approach is that it distorts the meaning of
> +1/0/+1 votes with respect to committership.
>
> To me, a +1 vote on someone becoming a committer means I've personally
> reviewed the person's contributions (in terms of code, mailing list
> activity, etc.) in decent depth.
In a TLP PMC, I agree that a +1 should mean due diligence. PMC
members should be aware of contributions made by non-committers, and
the [DISCUSSION] before the [VOTE] should uncover any issues.
Which implies that due diligence really should be done during
[DISCUSS] and not wait until [VOTE].
>
> It does NOT mean I trust a bunch of other people to form my opinion
> for me. If, for whatever reason (for example a long holiday weekend),
> I haven't had a chance to look at the person's history, and a vote is
> required right now, a 0 seems more correct.
For a TLP PMC, I agree. But if there is some reason to delay the
vote, I don't have any trouble with an incubator PMC member
requesting an extension.
>
> Voting +1 explicitly without due diligence just so someone can reach a
> 3 +1 bar seems wrong to me. I guess there do exist other options,
> like asking for the vote to be open longer, saying explicitly that my
> +1 is for the process and the PMC without reviewing the person, and
> others. So maybe this is soluble and OK after all. I'm just thinking
> out loud here...
My main argument here is that the incubator is not a normal project.
The role of the incubator PMC is to guide podlings in the way of
Apache. And a big part of the way is learning how to grant commit
privileges to people who demonstrate to the project that they deserve
it.
I'm also very aware that most incubator PMC members simply don't have
the time to perform due diligence on requests for commit access for
podlings. So what I'm proposing allows incubator PMC members to
perform due diligence if they want to, or simply provide oversight of
the PPMC's actions on new committers.
Craig
>
> Yoav
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
You're not the first one to have mentioned this approach. The thing
that troubles me in this approach is that it distorts the meaning of
+1/0/+1 votes with respect to committership.
To me, a +1 vote on someone becoming a committer means I've personally
reviewed the person's contributions (in terms of code, mailing list
activity, etc.) in decent depth.
It does NOT mean I trust a bunch of other people to form my opinion
for me. If, for whatever reason (for example a long holiday weekend),
I haven't had a chance to look at the person's history, and a vote is
required right now, a 0 seems more correct.
Voting +1 explicitly without due diligence just so someone can reach a
3 +1 bar seems wrong to me. I guess there do exist other options,
like asking for the vote to be open longer, saying explicitly that my
+1 is for the process and the PMC without reviewing the person, and
others. So maybe this is soluble and OK after all. I'm just thinking
out loud here...
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On May 30, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Craig Russell wrote:
>
>> I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by
>> the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
>> TLP is best practice for the incubator.
>
>> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
>> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
>> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
>
>> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
>> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
>> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
>
> This is mostly a limitation of being a non-ASF Member. ASF Members
> have
> access to all of the mailing list archives, including private lists.
Actually, as an incubator pmc member, I don't necessarily want to
mine the archives. I want to see that the PPMC members have expressed
their opinions on the candidates.
>
>> So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
>> for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
>> PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator
>> PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC.
>
>> Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC
>> private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a formal
>> [VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and
>> vote of the community.
>
> The only difference being the formal vote being on the open list,
> right?
Right.
>
> Do you expect people to vote -1 in public, or do you expect the
> PPMC not
> to hold the vote at all if people express negative views?
I expect that during the [DISCUSS] part of the process, if anyone
expresses concerns about the suitability of the candidate, then these
concerns should be thoroughly resolved before further action is
taken. So in this scenario, no one ever has to vote -1 in public.
> And do you want
> negative views about a Committer to be maintained in perpetuity
> around the
> Internet? I've certainly seen that raised as a concern,
> particularly as
> more and more employers mine the Internet for information about
> potential
> employees.
I share that concern. If serious objections are raised during
[DISCUSSION] then the PPMC member proposing the candidate needs to
either resolve the objections or wait some time before trying to
propose the candidate again. Either way avoids embarrassment.
Craig
>
> --- 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: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Craig Russell wrote:
> I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by
> the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
> TLP is best practice for the incubator.
> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
This is mostly a limitation of being a non-ASF Member. ASF Members have
access to all of the mailing list archives, including private lists.
> So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
> for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
> PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator
> PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC.
> Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC
> private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a formal
> [VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and
> vote of the community.
The only difference being the formal vote being on the open list, right?
Do you expect people to vote -1 in public, or do you expect the PPMC not
to hold the vote at all if people express negative views? And do you want
negative views about a Committer to be maintained in perpetuity around the
Internet? I've certainly seen that raised as a concern, particularly as
more and more employers mine the Internet for information about potential
employees.
--- Noel
Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by
the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
TLP is best practice for the incubator.
The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC
members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC
processes and voting based on the PPMC vote process.
Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator
PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC.
[Only the final vote is binding.]
Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC
private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a formal
[VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and
vote of the community.
This way, the incubator PMC can see that the PPMC "gets" the Apache Way.
Craig
On May 30, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
> I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
> distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
>
> The new text says
>
> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote
> is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
> committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an
> Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the
> documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the
> Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.
>
> I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
> reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
>
> Craig
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
>>> contributions.
>>
>> +1 != +0
>>
>>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>>> binding.
>>
>> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
>> elsewhere it
>> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were
>> PMC to
>> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
>> There is
>> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
>>
>> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a
>> recognized
>> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only
>> PMC votes
>> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can
>> other
>> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes
>> are binding.
>> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
>>
>> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta
>> Committer who
>> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For
>> years
>> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
>> is the
>> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that
>> didn't go
>> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
>>
>>> the documentation link above is out of date.
>>
>> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
>>
>> --- 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!
>
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!
PPMC guidance on new committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
The new text says
Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote is
positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an Apache
committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the documented
procedures to complete the process, and CC both the Incubator PMC and
the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.
I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
Craig
On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>
>
>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
>> contributions.
>
> +1 != +0
>
>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
>> binding.
>
> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that
> elsewhere it
> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were
> PMC to
> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
> There is
> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
>
> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a
> recognized
> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only
> PMC votes
> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can
> other
> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes are
> binding.
> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
>
> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta Committer
> who
> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For
> years
> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
> is the
> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that
> didn't go
> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
>
>> the documentation link above is out of date.
>
> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
>
> --- 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: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
> contributions.
+1 != +0
> I always thought (and the documentation at
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
> binding.
It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that elsewhere it
properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were PMC to
which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC. There is
only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a recognized
entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only PMC votes
count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can other
members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes are binding.
This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta Committer who
isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For years
people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta is the
source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that didn't go
through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
> the documentation link above is out of date.
It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hey,
On 5/29/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > Vote results so far
> > 15 +1 votes
> > 1 0
> > No -1.
>
> Yes, but I only see two +1 that are binding:
>
> > Cliff Schmidt
> > Paul Frematle
>
> Did I miss a third? A few of us have been reviewing the vote summary and
> thread today, and none of us notice a third +1 vote. Resolvable, but we
> need for everyone to pay attention to this stuff. :-)
I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
contributions.
I always thought (and the documentation at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
binding. There were plenty of PPMC +1 votes without my vote. If I'm
wrong, it (a) sucks because other PPMC members don't learn the Apache
Way, and we're telling them they don't count, and (b) the
documentation link above is out of date.
Yoav
RE: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> Now that we have 3 votes from IPMC, can we please proceed with the accout
> creation for arnuad?
Yes. Please have one of your Mentors follow through on the account request.
> Had Yoav enough time to familliarize himself with the project, I am sure
he
> would have voted +1 for arnuad.
I won't speak for Yoav, but of those of us who were reviewing the issue
yesterday, any of us would have voted +1.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
Noel,
Now that we have 3 votes from IPMC, can we please proceed with the accout
creation for arnuad?
Thanks Henry for giving the +1 for this thread. Besides Yoav has +0 so I
guess there are no objections at all.
Arnaud has been very active in the last two months and he throughly deserves
to be a committer.
Since James dropped off as a mentor we didn't even have 3 mentors until Yoav
stepped up a few days ago.
Had Yoav enough time to familliarize himself with the project, I am sure he
would have voted +1 for arnuad.
Regards,
Rajith
On 5/29/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
> > The following vote has been open for 6 days, Here is the vote result to
> > add Arnuad Simon to the Qpid project.
>
> > Vote results so far
> > 15 +1 votes
> > 1 0
> > No -1.
>
> Yes, but I only see two +1 that are binding:
>
> > Cliff Schmidt
> > Paul Frematle
>
> Did I miss a third? A few of us have been reviewing the vote summary and
> thread today, and none of us notice a third +1 vote. Resolvable, but we
> need for everyone to pay attention to this stuff. :-)
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
Noel,
Now that we have 3 votes from IPMC, can we please proceed with the accout
creation for arnuad?
Thanks Henry for giving the +1 for this thread. Besides Yoav has +0 so I
guess there are no objections at all.
Arnaud has been very active in the last two months and he throughly deserves
to be a committer.
Since James dropped off as a mentor we didn't even have 3 mentors until Yoav
stepped up a few days ago.
Had Yoav enough time to familliarize himself with the project, I am sure he
would have voted +1 for arnuad.
Regards,
Rajith
On 5/29/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
> > The following vote has been open for 6 days, Here is the vote result to
> > add Arnuad Simon to the Qpid project.
>
> > Vote results so far
> > 15 +1 votes
> > 1 0
> > No -1.
>
> Yes, but I only see two +1 that are binding:
>
> > Cliff Schmidt
> > Paul Frematle
>
> Did I miss a third? A few of us have been reviewing the vote summary and
> thread today, and none of us notice a third +1 vote. Resolvable, but we
> need for everyone to pay attention to this stuff. :-)
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hey,
On 5/29/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > Vote results so far
> > 15 +1 votes
> > 1 0
> > No -1.
>
> Yes, but I only see two +1 that are binding:
>
> > Cliff Schmidt
> > Paul Frematle
>
> Did I miss a third? A few of us have been reviewing the vote summary and
> thread today, and none of us notice a third +1 vote. Resolvable, but we
> need for everyone to pay attention to this stuff. :-)
I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
contributions.
I always thought (and the documentation at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
binding. There were plenty of PPMC +1 votes without my vote. If I'm
wrong, it (a) sucks because other PPMC members don't learn the Apache
Way, and we're telling them they don't count, and (b) the
documentation link above is out of date.
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> The following vote has been open for 6 days, Here is the vote result to
> add Arnuad Simon to the Qpid project.
> Vote results so far
> 15 +1 votes
> 1 0
> No -1.
Yes, but I only see two +1 that are binding:
> Cliff Schmidt
> Paul Frematle
Did I miss a third? A few of us have been reviewing the vote summary and
thread today, and none of us notice a third +1 vote. Resolvable, but we
need for everyone to pay attention to this stuff. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [RESULT][VOTE] Arnuad Simon as committer for Qpid
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> The following vote has been open for 6 days, Here is the vote result to
> add Arnuad Simon to the Qpid project.
> Vote results so far
> 15 +1 votes
> 1 0
> No -1.
Yes, but I only see two +1 that are binding:
> Cliff Schmidt
> Paul Frematle
Did I miss a third? A few of us have been reviewing the vote summary and
thread today, and none of us notice a third +1 vote. Resolvable, but we
need for everyone to pay attention to this stuff. :-)
--- Noel