You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> on 2016/03/18 01:33:29 UTC
Allowed Champions on podlings
All,
It was recently pointed out that some of our docs are a bit inconsistent
around who can champion a candidate podling.
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Champion
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Champion
In the former, officers and members are allowed to, but in the latter only
members. I'd like to propose to make these two consistent, and allow both
officers and members to be champions. I'll make this change in about 72
hours via lazy consensus unless someone comes up with a $reason why it
should be members only.
John
Re: Allowed Champions on podlings
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:34 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:25 PM Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, it's been a week with no objections. Craig's concern could also
>> be addressed by allowing Officers to join the IPMC in the same way
>> that Members can.
>>
>> I'd like to see this question resolved so that we progress the
>> Airflow proposal to a vote with Chris Riccomini as Champion (VP of
>> Samza). He'd do an awesome job as champion and we'd like to get
>> started with the vote.
>>
>
> Jakob,
>
> Not sure if your comments are relevant on this thread or the thread w/
> Marvin on it. Basically, with Marvin's incoming change, the champion role
> will be clarified as being responsible for only the bootstrap of the
> candidate into a vote for acceptance in to the incubator.
>
> There should be nothing blocking discussion/voting on Airflow based on it.
+1 to proceed with the Airflow vote.
John's change has been applied, so Chris Riccomini is fine as Champion.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Allowed Champions on podlings
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:25 PM Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, it's been a week with no objections. Craig's concern could also
> be addressed by allowing Officers to join the IPMC in the same way
> that Members can.
>
> I'd like to see this question resolved so that we progress the
> Airflow proposal to a vote with Chris Riccomini as Champion (VP of
> Samza). He'd do an awesome job as champion and we'd like to get
> started with the vote.
>
Jakob,
Not sure if your comments are relevant on this thread or the thread w/
Marvin on it. Basically, with Marvin's incoming change, the champion role
will be clarified as being responsible for only the bootstrap of the
candidate into a vote for acceptance in to the incubator.
There should be nothing blocking discussion/voting on Airflow based on it.
John
>
> -Jakob
>
>
> On 21 March 2016 at 09:57, Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the
> PMC of the sponsor.
> >
> > I’d expect the Champion to subscribe to the private@ list and to have
> binding votes on podling releases. These both require PMC membership.
> >
> > The alternative is to create two different “exceptions” that would allow
> Champions to subscribe to private@ and to have binding release votes.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >> On Mar 20, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Without judging the goodness of it... I'd just point out that
> >>> currently in the non-Member Officer case, they must be a member of the
> >>> Sponsoring PMC. I thought that was true of Members as well, btw, but
> >>> thought I'd point out that it's not simply Members and Officers.
> >>
> >> Thanks for bringing that up, Tim.
> >>
> >> In my view, this rule is too complicated, and therefore I support John's
> >> initiative to allow Champions to be any ASF Member or Officer. Here is
> a
> >> patch implementing his proposal:
> >>
> >> https://paste.apache.org/LwdO
> >>
> >> The primary utility of requiring the Champion to have certain
> qualifications
> >> is to ensure that projects contemplating incubation get good guidance,
> so that
> >> they either produce a sound proposal or make an informed decision not to
> >> incubate. (I've seen both happen, as have others who have served as a
> >> Champion.)
> >>
> >> But by the time a full-blown proposal lands on general@incubator, it's
> too
> >> late to go back and change the guidance that the candidate project
> received.
> >> Thus, when this rule is misunderstood, the only effect is that we end
> up in a
> >> distracting debate about whether to replace a Champion whose most
> important
> >> work is already done. This does not help the prospective podling, nor
> does it
> >> inoculate future prospective podlings against receiving poor guidance
> from an
> >> unqualified Champion.
> >>
> >> These days, the Sponsor is nearly always the Incubator, anyway. I
> don't think
> >> the IPMC objects to having Officers who are neither ASF Members nor IPMC
> >> members serve as Champion for proposals where the Incubator is the
> Sponsor.
> >>
> >> In the unlikely event that there is a podling proposal where the
> Sponsor is
> >> not the Incubator AND the Champion is neither an ASF Member nor a
> member of
> >> the Sponsoring PMC AND the Sponsoring PMC objects... we can cross that
> bridge
> >> when we come to it.
> >>
> >> In the meantime, I don't think the present rule offers enough value to
> justify
> >> its complexity.
> >>
> >> Marvin Humphrey
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > Architect
> > craig.russell@oracle.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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Allowed Champions on podlings
Posted by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>.
So, it's been a week with no objections. Craig's concern could also
be addressed by allowing Officers to join the IPMC in the same way
that Members can.
I'd like to see this question resolved so that we progress the
Airflow proposal to a vote with Chris Riccomini as Champion (VP of
Samza). He'd do an awesome job as champion and we'd like to get
started with the vote.
-Jakob
On 21 March 2016 at 09:57, Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
> There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the PMC of the sponsor.
>
> I’d expect the Champion to subscribe to the private@ list and to have binding votes on podling releases. These both require PMC membership.
>
> The alternative is to create two different “exceptions” that would allow Champions to subscribe to private@ and to have binding release votes.
>
> Craig
>
>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Without judging the goodness of it... I'd just point out that
>>> currently in the non-Member Officer case, they must be a member of the
>>> Sponsoring PMC. I thought that was true of Members as well, btw, but
>>> thought I'd point out that it's not simply Members and Officers.
>>
>> Thanks for bringing that up, Tim.
>>
>> In my view, this rule is too complicated, and therefore I support John's
>> initiative to allow Champions to be any ASF Member or Officer. Here is a
>> patch implementing his proposal:
>>
>> https://paste.apache.org/LwdO
>>
>> The primary utility of requiring the Champion to have certain qualifications
>> is to ensure that projects contemplating incubation get good guidance, so that
>> they either produce a sound proposal or make an informed decision not to
>> incubate. (I've seen both happen, as have others who have served as a
>> Champion.)
>>
>> But by the time a full-blown proposal lands on general@incubator, it's too
>> late to go back and change the guidance that the candidate project received.
>> Thus, when this rule is misunderstood, the only effect is that we end up in a
>> distracting debate about whether to replace a Champion whose most important
>> work is already done. This does not help the prospective podling, nor does it
>> inoculate future prospective podlings against receiving poor guidance from an
>> unqualified Champion.
>>
>> These days, the Sponsor is nearly always the Incubator, anyway. I don't think
>> the IPMC objects to having Officers who are neither ASF Members nor IPMC
>> members serve as Champion for proposals where the Incubator is the Sponsor.
>>
>> In the unlikely event that there is a podling proposal where the Sponsor is
>> not the Incubator AND the Champion is neither an ASF Member nor a member of
>> the Sponsoring PMC AND the Sponsoring PMC objects... we can cross that bridge
>> when we come to it.
>>
>> In the meantime, I don't think the present rule offers enough value to justify
>> its complexity.
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect
> craig.russell@oracle.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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Allowed Champions on podlings
Posted by Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the PMC of the sponsor.
I’d expect the Champion to subscribe to the private@ list and to have binding votes on podling releases. These both require PMC membership.
The alternative is to create two different “exceptions” that would allow Champions to subscribe to private@ and to have binding release votes.
Craig
> On Mar 20, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Without judging the goodness of it... I'd just point out that
>> currently in the non-Member Officer case, they must be a member of the
>> Sponsoring PMC. I thought that was true of Members as well, btw, but
>> thought I'd point out that it's not simply Members and Officers.
>
> Thanks for bringing that up, Tim.
>
> In my view, this rule is too complicated, and therefore I support John's
> initiative to allow Champions to be any ASF Member or Officer. Here is a
> patch implementing his proposal:
>
> https://paste.apache.org/LwdO
>
> The primary utility of requiring the Champion to have certain qualifications
> is to ensure that projects contemplating incubation get good guidance, so that
> they either produce a sound proposal or make an informed decision not to
> incubate. (I've seen both happen, as have others who have served as a
> Champion.)
>
> But by the time a full-blown proposal lands on general@incubator, it's too
> late to go back and change the guidance that the candidate project received.
> Thus, when this rule is misunderstood, the only effect is that we end up in a
> distracting debate about whether to replace a Champion whose most important
> work is already done. This does not help the prospective podling, nor does it
> inoculate future prospective podlings against receiving poor guidance from an
> unqualified Champion.
>
> These days, the Sponsor is nearly always the Incubator, anyway. I don't think
> the IPMC objects to having Officers who are neither ASF Members nor IPMC
> members serve as Champion for proposals where the Incubator is the Sponsor.
>
> In the unlikely event that there is a podling proposal where the Sponsor is
> not the Incubator AND the Champion is neither an ASF Member nor a member of
> the Sponsoring PMC AND the Sponsoring PMC objects... we can cross that bridge
> when we come to it.
>
> In the meantime, I don't think the present rule offers enough value to justify
> its complexity.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect
craig.russell@oracle.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: Allowed Champions on podlings
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> In the meantime, I don't think the present rule offers enough value to
> justify
> its complexity.
>
+1
Re: Allowed Champions on podlings
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Without judging the goodness of it... I'd just point out that
> currently in the non-Member Officer case, they must be a member of the
> Sponsoring PMC. I thought that was true of Members as well, btw, but
> thought I'd point out that it's not simply Members and Officers.
Thanks for bringing that up, Tim.
In my view, this rule is too complicated, and therefore I support John's
initiative to allow Champions to be any ASF Member or Officer. Here is a
patch implementing his proposal:
https://paste.apache.org/LwdO
The primary utility of requiring the Champion to have certain qualifications
is to ensure that projects contemplating incubation get good guidance, so that
they either produce a sound proposal or make an informed decision not to
incubate. (I've seen both happen, as have others who have served as a
Champion.)
But by the time a full-blown proposal lands on general@incubator, it's too
late to go back and change the guidance that the candidate project received.
Thus, when this rule is misunderstood, the only effect is that we end up in a
distracting debate about whether to replace a Champion whose most important
work is already done. This does not help the prospective podling, nor does it
inoculate future prospective podlings against receiving poor guidance from an
unqualified Champion.
These days, the Sponsor is nearly always the Incubator, anyway. I don't think
the IPMC objects to having Officers who are neither ASF Members nor IPMC
members serve as Champion for proposals where the Incubator is the Sponsor.
In the unlikely event that there is a podling proposal where the Sponsor is
not the Incubator AND the Champion is neither an ASF Member nor a member of
the Sponsoring PMC AND the Sponsoring PMC objects... we can cross that bridge
when we come to it.
In the meantime, I don't think the present rule offers enough value to justify
its complexity.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Allowed Champions on podlings
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:33 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> It was recently pointed out that some of our docs are a bit inconsistent
> around who can champion a candidate podling.
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Champion
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Champion
>
> In the former, officers and members are allowed to, but in the latter only
> members. I'd like to propose to make these two consistent, and allow both
> officers and members to be champions. I'll make this change in about 72
> hours via lazy consensus unless someone comes up with a $reason why it
> should be members only.
Without judging the goodness of it... I'd just point out that
currently in the non-Member Officer case, they must be a member of the
Sponsoring PMC. I thought that was true of Members as well, btw, but
thought I'd point out that it's not simply Members and Officers.
--tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org