You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> on 2008/06/03 22:29:15 UTC
INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
---
Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
---
I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
---
Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
*sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
invitation process.*
---
This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
oversight.
WDYT? -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl>.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
[...]
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
Makes a lot of sense, it's more light weight in terms of required actions from
IPMC. And gives the PPMC more direct control, without losing oversight.
Simple change, like it a lot.
Cheers,
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Santiago Gala <sg...@apache.org>.
El jue, 05-06-2008 a las 08:21 -0400, Jim Jagielski escribió:
> On Jun 3, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > ---
> >
> > I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> > ---
> > Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> > Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> > vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> > podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> > practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> > *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> > discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> > vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> > the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> > consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> > for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> > approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> > invitation process.*
> > ---
> >
> > This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> > full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> > as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> > voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> > oversight.
> >
>
> +1
>
+1
I guess it should be done for both cases, public or private vote. There
is not a substancial difference between both cases that I can see.
While in principle finding who voted when and how in a private list is
slightly more cumbersome than on a public one, I don't think this merits
a difference in process.
Regards
Santiago
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
--
Santiago Gala
http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 3, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
Posted by David Read <dr...@bea.com>.
general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Nodet [mailto:gnodet@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 2:48 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
+1
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quick question, haven't thought thru, but raising it here...Does it make
> sense to align voting in a new committer with
> "Voting in a new PPMC member"? (on the same page)?
Makes sense to me. The policy for IPMC oversight should be the same.
And, IMO, it'd be nice to instill in the PPMCs that all committers
should be on the PPMC. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
+1
I struggled a lot with the current guide to do two things:
1. Give the PPMC experience in doing things that as a PMC they will
have to do, while at the same time,
2. Give the incubator PMC oversight and the ability to step in if the
PPMC acts incorrectly.
So, assuming both committer and PPMC membership votes are covered by
the new guide, I'm very satisfied.
Craig
On Jun 3, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Quick question, haven't thought thru, but raising it here...Does it
> make sense to align voting in a new committer with
> "Voting in a new PPMC member"? (on the same page)?
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> | Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> | ---
> | Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> | Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding
> the
> | vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> | podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> | practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> | calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> | discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> | vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there
> are
> | three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> | order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> | support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> | results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> | Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should
> review
> | all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> | members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> | issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> | ---
> |
> | I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> | ---
> | Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> | Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding
> the
> | vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> | podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> | practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> | *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> | discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> | vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> | the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> | consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC
> member
> | for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> | approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> | invitation process.*
> | ---
> |
> | This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> | full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> | as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> | voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> | oversight.
> |
> | WDYT? -- justin
> |
> |
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> | To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> | For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
>
> iD8DBQFIRauEgNg6eWEDv1kRAhR+AJ4y9Lj4QFHbLWzJ+WS6xs2pTH20CwCdGlqw
> /kXX8IPkGwl+8WIuKzg+AGU=
> =ItmI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Quick question, haven't thought thru, but raising it here...Does it make sense to align voting in a new committer with
"Voting in a new PPMC member"? (on the same page)?
thanks,
dims
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
| Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
| ---
| Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
| Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
| vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
| podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
| practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
| calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
| discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
| vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
| three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
| order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
| support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
| results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
| Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
| all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
| members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
| issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
| ---
|
| I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
| ---
| Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
| Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
| vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
| podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
| practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
| *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
| discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
| vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
| the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
| consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
| for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
| approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
| invitation process.*
| ---
|
| This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
| full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
| as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
| voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
| oversight.
|
| WDYT? -- justin
|
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
| For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFIRauEgNg6eWEDv1kRAhR+AJ4y9Lj4QFHbLWzJ+WS6xs2pTH20CwCdGlqw
/kXX8IPkGwl+8WIuKzg+AGU=
=ItmI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> How do you see infra checking that the account requests that they
> receive have been voted on according to this procedure?
The account reqs from the PPMC should CC Incubator PMC. So, the
responsibility is on the Incubator PMC members to ensure that the
internal process is followed not on Infra. (Infra will/should reject
the req if the Incubator PMC isn't CCed.) -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> ...I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight....
+1 to your proposal, makes complete sense.
How do you see infra checking that the account requests that they
receive have been voted on according to this procedure?
We might want to add something like "The account creation request sent
to the infrastructure team must include references to the archived
PPMC discussion and voting threads, and to the IPMC ACK thread".
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
+1
Niall
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
Any practice for a podling's PPMC that exercises or simulates the processes
expected of a mature PMC is worth adopting.
+1
Alex
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> -jean
>
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
>> ---
>>
>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
>> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
>> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
>> invitation process.*
>> ---
>>
>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
>> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
>> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
>> oversight.
>>
>> WDYT? -- justin
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
+1
-jean
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
+1
I'll make the edits.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
Same here. +1.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1.
>
> I very much like the idea of the PPMC -> Incubator PMC relationship
> modeling the board whenever possible.
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> > ---
> > Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> > Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> > vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> > podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> > practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> > *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> > discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> > vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> > the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> > consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> > for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> > approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> > invitation process.*
> > ---
> >
> > This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> > full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> > as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> > voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> > oversight.
> >
> > WDYT? -- justin
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
RE: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> I very much like the idea of the PPMC -> Incubator PMC relationship
>>> modeling the board whenever possible.
>> Keeping in mind that the PPMC has no actual standing, so the vote still
>> requires the standard 3 +1 and more +1 than -1 from PMC members. Which
is
>> why we always encourage podlings to have at least 3 Mentors.
> I disagree. I'm fine with a PPMC voting to add a new committer as
> long as the mentor(s) has approved it.
We may be arguing solely over a misunderstanding in communication.
The single fundamental governing policy accross all ASF projects is that the
PMC collectively makes all decisions. The Incubator-specific construct
known as the PPMC has no standing. We can rename the thing if the acronym
is too hard for people to keep straight, but PPMC != PMC. Yes we agree that
the the PPMC is encouraged to participate, but the only binding votes on the
PPMC are those cast by PMC members.
> if at least one member of the Incubator PMC is executing direct oversight
> and the rest of the Incubator PMC has the opportunity to execute
oversight,
> then I'm satisfied. Enforcing 3 mentors is just damn silly, IMO.
I am not talking about enforcing 3 mentors. I simply said that HAVING them
makes it easier to get the REQUIRED 3 votes from PMC members. Nothing more,
nothing less.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> I very much like the idea of the PPMC -> Incubator PMC relationship
>> modeling the board whenever possible.
>
> Keeping in mind that the PPMC has no actual standing, so the vote still
> requires the standard 3 +1 and more +1 than -1 from PMC members. Which is
> why we always encourage podlings to have at least 3 Mentors.
I disagree. I'm fine with a PPMC voting to add a new committer as
long as the mentor(s) has approved it. There's zero reason for the
number three - if at least one member of the Incubator PMC is
executing direct oversight and the rest of the Incubator PMC has the
opportunity to execute oversight, then I'm satisfied. Enforcing 3
mentors is just damn silly, IMO. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> I very much like the idea of the PPMC -> Incubator PMC relationship
> modeling the board whenever possible.
Keeping in mind that the PPMC has no actual standing, so the vote still
requires the standard 3 +1 and more +1 than -1 from PMC members. Which is
why we always encourage podlings to have at least 3 Mentors.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
+1.
I very much like the idea of the PPMC -> Incubator PMC relationship
modeling the board whenever possible.
Hen
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
I would be quite happy with the below. It reads sufficiently
straightforwardly.
Regards, Upayavira
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:29 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding
> the vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on
> the podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC
> member for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request
> is approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the
> committer invitation process.*
> ---
+1
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Jun 6, 2008, at 1:08 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Friday 06 June 2008 09:26, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Just so I'm clear on the proposal, if the PPMC votes in private, and
>> no Mentors or PMC members vote, the vote passes with 15 non-binding
>> +1
>> votes, and no binding votes, then lazy consensus (no +1 vote from any
>> PMC member) admits a new committer to Apache?
>
> No.
> See Noel's comment(s).
> All committer ballots require 3 +1 from PMC members. How can this be
> so easy
> to misunderstand?
It's not that I don't understand.
It's that Justin's proposal as written doesn't mention the 3 +1 vote
requirement.
Craig
>
>
> If the podling don't have 3 PMC members voting +1, then they should
> raise a
> flag (which is a concern in terms of perhaps the Mentorship needs
> strengthening). If the posted not to private@i.a.o doesn't contain 3
> binding
> votes, then there is no ACK...
>
>
> 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
>
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: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 06 June 2008 09:26, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Just so I'm clear on the proposal, if the PPMC votes in private, and
> no Mentors or PMC members vote, the vote passes with 15 non-binding +1
> votes, and no binding votes, then lazy consensus (no +1 vote from any
> PMC member) admits a new committer to Apache?
No.
See Noel's comment(s).
All committer ballots require 3 +1 from PMC members. How can this be so easy
to misunderstand?
If the podling don't have 3 PMC members voting +1, then they should raise a
flag (which is a concern in terms of perhaps the Mentorship needs
strengthening). If the posted not to private@i.a.o doesn't contain 3 binding
votes, then there is no ACK...
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: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Just so I'm clear on the proposal, if the PPMC votes in private, and
no Mentors or PMC members vote, the vote passes with 15 non-binding +1
votes, and no binding votes, then lazy consensus (no +1 vote from any
PMC member) admits a new committer to Apache?
Thanks,
Craig
On Jun 3, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT? -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Justin,
To summarize you are proposing the following change:
> After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list
to:
> After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list
And change:
> The Incubator vote is done even if there are three +1 votes
> from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote
to:
> *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK the receipt
> of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus.
That is what the process is already supposed to be, even if the documents,
for whatever reason, say otherwise.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org