You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> on 2006/01/11 15:28:51 UTC
[VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Folks,
Let's VOTE for the following changes to incubator processes (majority
rules, no vetos). Anyone can vote, but only the PMC member vote's are
binding. If you want to bring up an issue, PLEASE DON'T hijack this
thread, but start a new one. As usual use +1/+0/-0/-1 notation.
[ ] - Any proposal should hit general@incubator first, No PR before that.
[ ] - Any PR should be vetted by PRC, No Excuses.
[ ] - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as mentors
(without regard to affiliation)
[ ] - Any new proposal should list at least one person as a
infrastucture volunteer.
[ ] - A sponsoring PMC should hold their VOTE to sponsor a proposal or
IP Clearance 72 hours *AFTER* it is posted on general@incubator
[ ] - Any existing committer from any Apache project should be able to
volunteer to work on the proposed project within the 72 hours. Any
later, it would be through regular karma process. (To promote
inclusion/diversification from day one)
[ ] - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to
general@incubator as well
[ ] - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code
gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
[ ] - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin
incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor.
[ ] - Within 72 hours of a new project hitting the general@incubator
mailing list, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory
vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented
by the sponsoring PMC.
PS: I added the latest suggestion from Bill as the last item.
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
> [ ] - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as mentors
> (without regard to affiliation)
Where 3 are responsible, it could be no one is responsible. Better have one main mentor with
possible backups (if the mentor is on holiday, etc..).
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
> [ -1 ] - Any proposal should hit general@incubator first, No PR before that.
Proposals often get formed elsewhere then come to the
Incubator as soon as possible. +1 to no PR before that.
> [ +1 ] - Any PR should be vetted by PRC, No Excuses.
Yes, must. Plus need documentation and guidelines
regarding how to go about doing PR.
> [ +1 ] - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as mentors
> (without regard to affiliation)
Yes, must.
> [ -1 ] - Any new proposal should list at least one person as a
> infrastucture volunteer.
We should instead strongly encourage this via documentation.
There is plenty that they can help with.
> [ -1 ] - A sponsoring PMC should hold their VOTE to sponsor a proposal or
> IP Clearance 72 hours *AFTER* it is posted on general@incubator
Perhaps i don't understand the issue, but the sponsor PMC
should have already committed to it beforehand.
> [ +1 ] - Any existing committer from any Apache project should be able to
> volunteer to work on the proposed project within the 72 hours. Any
> later, it would be through regular karma process. (To promote
> inclusion/diversification from day one)
Agree with the general idea to encourage existing
committers to be involved early. However, wouldn't they
just get involved at the proposal stage? Why is any
special treatment needed?
> [ +1 ] - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to
> general@incubator as well
Yes, must.
> [ +1 ] - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code
> gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
The real vote gets done by the project PMC. Needs Incubator
PMC vote just to ensure that procedure is followed.
The substance of the clearance would be handled by the
responsible PMC.
> [ -1 ] - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin
> incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor.
No need. The Incubator people can speak up at any
time to keep the process on track from the beginning.
The exit vote is sufficient.
> [ -1 ] - Within 72 hours of a new project hitting the general@incubator
> mailing list, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory
> vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented
> by the sponsoring PMC.
Same as for the previous item.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Let's VOTE for the following changes to incubator processes (majority
> rules, no vetos). Anyone can vote, but only the PMC member vote's are
> binding. If you want to bring up an issue, PLEASE DON'T hijack this
> thread, but start a new one. As usual use +1/+0/-0/-1 notation.
Just to be perfectly clear, does PR below stand for Press Release
or any Public Relations in general (i.e., forms of announcements
other than a press release)?
>
> [ ] - Any proposal should hit general@incubator first, No PR before that.
>
> [ ] - Any PR should be vetted by PRC, No Excuses.
>
> [ ] - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as mentors
> (without regard to affiliation)
>
> [ ] - Any new proposal should list at least one person as a
> infrastucture volunteer.
>
> [ ] - A sponsoring PMC should hold their VOTE to sponsor a proposal or
> IP Clearance 72 hours *AFTER* it is posted on general@incubator
>
> [ ] - Any existing committer from any Apache project should be able to
> volunteer to work on the proposed project within the 72 hours. Any
> later, it would be through regular karma process. (To promote
> inclusion/diversification from day one)
>
> [ ] - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to
> general@incubator as well
>
> [ ] - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code
> gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
>
> [ ] - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin
> incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor.
>
> [ ] - Within 72 hours of a new project hitting the general@incubator
> mailing list, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory
> vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented
> by the sponsoring PMC.
>
> PS: I added the latest suggestion from Bill as the last item.
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Brian McCallister wrote:
>
>> [ -1 ] - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to
>> general@incubator as well
>
> A PMC isn't allowed to discuss wanting to bring code in?
>
>> [ +1 ] - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code
>> gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
>
> Isn't this required now?
I realize I was confused. Why are we voting these points? All IP Clearance,
shorthand incubator processes are voted on by the sponsoring PMC, presented to
the incubator, and voted to graduate the code by the Incubator PMC. Then,
finally the sponsoring PMC votes to accept the vetted work.
As it should be; no need for change, no problems exist. If your proposal, to
have Incubator PMC vote to accept *all* code (overriding the sponsoring PMC),
fails to attract support (as appears to be happening), then any voting on this
point is redundant.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by Brian McCallister <br...@apache.org>.
On Jan 11, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> [ -1 ] - Any proposal should hit general@incubator first, No PR
> before that.
>
> [ -1 ] - Any PR should be vetted by PRC, No Excuses.
If this includes blogging about it (which recently was an issue) then
it won't work, regardless of what we want. This is addressing a real
problem, but is not an enforceable option unless we know what PR
means, and "No Excuses" is insufficient as it implies any
communication with the public, which simply won't work.
A bad solution to a problem is not a solution and creates barriers to
a good solution.
> [ -0 ] - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as
> mentors
> (without regard to affiliation)
Current ASF projects which have less than that now. A mentor who
isn't a contributor is probably a bad idea, so what does it say if
current projects fail incubator requirements?
> [ -1 ] - Any new proposal should list at least one person as a
> infrastructure volunteer.
Nice in theory, not doable in practice. Should be strongly encouraged
to help with infrastructure, but no way it should be a requirement.
> [ -1 ] - A sponsoring PMC should hold their VOTE to sponsor a
> proposal or
> IP Clearance 72 hours *AFTER* it is posted on general@incubator
PMC sponsors projects to the incubator. Let the PMC talk it over
ahead of time and decide on a course of action.
> [ -0 ] - Any existing committer from any Apache project should be
> able to
> volunteer to work on the proposed project within the 72 hours. Any
> later, it would be through regular karma process. (To promote
> inclusion/diversification from day one)
I think this is a bad solution to a real problem. I don't have a
better solution at the moment.
> [ -1 ] - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to
> general@incubator as well
A PMC isn't allowed to discuss wanting to bring code in?
> [ +1 ] - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before
> code
> gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
Isn't this required now?
> [ -1 ] - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin
> incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor.
This removes the ability for PMC's to bring code in. Where do we draw
the line between code donations and patches?
>
> [ -1 ] - Within 72 hours of a new project hitting the
> general@incubator
> mailing list, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory
> vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented
> by the sponsoring PMC.
They can do this now, how is it a change?
-Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:28:51AM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Let's VOTE for the following changes to incubator processes (majority
> rules, no vetos). Anyone can vote, but only the PMC member vote's are
> binding. If you want to bring up an issue, PLEASE DON'T hijack this
> thread, but start a new one. As usual use +1/+0/-0/-1 notation.
Per my email from before.
> [ ] - Any proposal should hit general@incubator first, No PR before that.
+1.
> [ ] - Any PR should be vetted by PRC, No Excuses.
+1.
> [ ] - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as mentors
> (without regard to affiliation)
-1.
> [ ] - Any new proposal should list at least one person as a
> infrastucture volunteer.
-1.
> [ ] - A sponsoring PMC should hold their VOTE to sponsor a proposal or
> IP Clearance 72 hours *AFTER* it is posted on general@incubator
+1.
> [ ] - Any existing committer from any Apache project should be able to
> volunteer to work on the proposed project within the 72 hours. Any
> later, it would be through regular karma process. (To promote
> inclusion/diversification from day one)
+1.
> [ ] - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to
> general@incubator as well
-1.
> [ ] - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code
> gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
+1.
> [ ] - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin
> incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor.
-1.
> [ ] - Within 72 hours of a new project hitting the general@incubator
> mailing list, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory
> vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented
> by the sponsoring PMC.
+1. (Noting that it can't block the incubation, but only use it to raise
issues to make sure everything is in order.) -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
+1 - Any proposal should hit general@incubator first, No PR before that.
You state 'should'. Reality dictates mistakes will be made on this point.
+1 - Any PR should be vetted by PRC, No Excuses.
Although it's the PRC that dictates PRC policy.
-1 - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as mentors
Well, sure, would like to have, but not must have.
-1 - Any new proposal should list at least one person as a
infrastucture volunteer.
How many times do we have to say it? Most new persons are severely hamstrung
by what they are not permitted to do at infra.
-1 - A sponsoring PMC should hold their VOTE to sponsor a proposal or
IP Clearance 72 hours *AFTER* it is posted on general@incubator
Nope, absolutely no call for public humiliation when the sponsoring PMC
votes it down. We have enough traffic here, we need not see failed votes.
+1 - Any existing committer from any Apache project should be able to
volunteer to work on the proposed project within the 72 hours. Any
later, it would be through regular karma process. (To promote
inclusion/diversification from day one)
Although the 72 hr thing is silly, just state this policy starts upon
creation of the project wiki page, once it's voted in.
+1 - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to
general@incubator as well
Although not prior to the PMC's vote. See last note below, it would apply
to any code moving through incubator.
-1 - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code
gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
Another must? Sure we can hold advisory vote, but IP clearance was voted up
by the sponsoring PMC before code may be checked in. I would suggest that
general@incubator must be *notified* prior. But bad checkins can be reversed
and our vote would only be advisory anyways.
-1 - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin
incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor.
That is, I'm against this entirely, it the project falls under that PMC's
charter. The board already granted them charter to manage such projects.
+1 - Within 72 hours of a new project hitting the general@incubator
mailing list, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory
vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented
by the sponsoring PMC.
Oversight is always good, this is just a way of stating it formally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
will do. If anyone *else* wants to do it, please go ahead and update
the wiki as well.
Last time, i specifically asked for people to look there and no one
did till it hit the general@i as a VOTE :(
thanks,
dims
On 1/20/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Dims,
>
> It appears that we need more discussion on this issues. I think that we can
> reach consensus on some; perhaps not on others.
>
> Do you want to summarize the feedback on the wiki, so that we can revise?
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Dims,
It appears that we need more discussion on this issues. I think that we can
reach consensus on some; perhaps not on others.
Do you want to summarize the feedback on the wiki, so that we can revise?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> [ ] - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code
> gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
As previously noted, I think that it has to be OK'd by *SOME* PMC's vote,
but perhaps that could be either the Incubator or the importing PMC.
HOWEVER, we should be really clear that the vote is saying that the PMC
agrees that the IP was cleared as per policy (all the right forms are on
file, etc.), but we cannot claim that any sort of exhaustive provenance test
was performed by the ASF. Only that the ASF processes were properly
followed and completed, and that there are no known counter-claims regarding
the IP ownership.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Changes to Incubator process(es)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
For future uses, PLEASE follow RFC 2119 when writing such guidelines. If we
are going to codify, let's be precise.
Vote and comments below.
--- Noel
> [-1] - Any proposal should hit general@incubator first, No PR before that.
This conflates two issues. The PR issue is addressed by the next item. So
the real question is whether a proposal should hit general@i.a.o first.
First as in before what? I certainly don't have a problem with a proposal
being discussed with another PMC before it is proposed on general@i.a.o.
[+1] - Any PR [MUST] be vetted by PRC, No Excuses.
Note my change to the wording. This should be followed by all ASF projects,
period.
[+1] - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as mentors
(without regard to affiliation)
Not everyone will agree, but since the proposed wording is SHOULD and not
MUST, I'm in favor of this policy.
[-1] - Any new proposal should list at least one person as a
infrastucture volunteer.
Not necessary, and probably entirely impractical.
[-1] - A sponsoring PMC should hold their VOTE to sponsor a proposal or
IP Clearance 72 hours *AFTER* it is posted on general@incubator
I tend to agree with Bill Rowe on this issue. Why would the proposal even
be posted here if the sponsoring PMC hasn't committed to it?
[+1] - Any existing committer from any Apache project should be able to
volunteer to work on the proposed project within the 72 hours. Any
later, it would be through regular karma process. (To promote
inclusion/diversification from day one)
I agree with the gist, but we might want to fine-tune this item. And you're
missing the really vital point that each project should have a PPMC as it is
formed, and that will set policy for new Committer karma.
[+1] - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to
general@incubator as well
[ ] - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code
gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
I think that it has to be OK'd by *SOME* PMC's vote, but perhaps that could
be either the Incubator or the importing PMC. A watchdog on this might be
requiring sign-off from the VP of Legal Affairs, but I'm not sure that I
would want to put that responsibility on the role.
[-1] - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin
incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor.
I'm relatively satisfied that since the Incubator PMC can vote to either
terminate or graduate a project, that we have sufficient controls without
having to second guess a PMC before they can even get started.
[ ] - Within 72 hours of a new project hitting the general@incubator
mailing list, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory
vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented
by the sponsoring PMC.
I'm waivering between +1 and -1 on this. The real question I have is why we
have any timeframe at all. At any point in time, the Incubator PMC has the
right (and obligation) to raise issues about a project that might be in
trouble. The Incubator PMC consists largely of ASF Members and Officers. I
see no need to slam a door on them.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org