You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org> on 2003/09/28 21:03:51 UTC
The incubator and Poland
So we're yack yacking about the incubator (again). The incubator AFAICT
replicated a tricameral vote. To release you must have:
1. A PMC vote to accept it
2. The committers of the project vote that they're ready to leave
3. The incubator PMC vote to let them out.
The only country that ever invested significantly in such a system was
Poland (other examples exist but the other bodies are subservient and
generally advise more than consent). This was *one* of the times it was
wiped off the map.
I would suppose #2 would the be the most vested group and #1 be the second
most (substituted for the board in the top level situation)... I'd suppose
#3 would be the least vested group.
The point? None, I just like pointing my finger childishly when someone
does something silly (like create a tricameral voting system... pretty
funny, spell check doesn't recognize it, though it finds bicameral)...
-Andy
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: The incubator and Poland
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
> So we're yack yacking about the incubator (again).
if it bothers you so much, you don't have to participate. :-)
> The incubator AFAICT
> replicated a tricameral vote. To release you must have:
what do you mean by 'release'? release software, or be released
from the incubator? ah, reading ahead i see you mean the latter.
> 1. A PMC vote to accept it
no. if there is no tlp sponsor, the board gets to create a new
tlp for the soon-to-be ex-podling. if there is a tlp sponsor, it
gets to incorporate the graduated podling. if it doesn't want
it, the board will likely ask other projeccts if they want to
adopt it, or create a new tlp for it.
> 2. The committers of the project vote that they're ready to leave
not a requirement, but almost certain to happen. :-)
> 3. The incubator PMC vote to let them out.
yes.
so, only one vote, not three.
> I would suppose #2 would the be the most vested group and #1 be the second
> most (substituted for the board in the top level situation)... I'd suppose
> #3 would be the least vested group.
your suppositions would be wrong imnsho. #3 is the most vested, since
nothing will happen without that vote. since the podling doesn't really
need to vote to emerge, its vestedness (#2) doesn't apply. and #1 doesn't
apply because when the incubator says the podling is ready to emerge, it
will emerge -- one way or another.
or am i misunderstanding what you mean by 'vested'?
> The point? None, I just like pointing my finger childishly when someone
> does something silly (like create a tricameral voting system... pretty
> funny, spell check doesn't recognize it, though it finds bicameral)...
is it childish to point your finger at something that doesn't exist? :-D
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: unicameral solution
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> To rephrase Andrew's tricameral process, recasting with veto in mind ...
>
> 1. A Sponsoring Entity votes to accept a candidate
not necessary.
> 2. The Sponsoring Entity votes to exit the candidate.
not applicable.
> 3. Incubator PMC hold the right to veto.
not true. the incubator is the *sole* authority.
you appear to have the wrong end of the stick here, stephen. the
sponsor is merely a bystander, something like the parent of a child
in school. to follow that imperfect analogy, the incubator is the
school -- nothing the parent can do will affect whether the child
graduates or not. the parent simply has the option of welcoming
the graduate -- or disowning it.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
unicameral solution
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Have been thinking along the same lines - although I wasn't able to
capture the essence as nicely as Andrew :-).
To rephrase Andrew's tricameral process, recasting with veto in mind ...
1. A Sponsoring Entity votes to accept a candidate
2. The Sponsoring Entity votes to exit the candidate.
3. Incubator PMC hold the right to veto.
This would bring us to a unicameral solution while maintaining
appropriate checks and balances through the diligence of the Incubator.
Stephen.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>So we're yack yacking about the incubator (again). The incubator AFAICT
>replicated a tricameral vote. To release you must have:
>
>1. A PMC vote to accept it
>2. The committers of the project vote that they're ready to leave
>3. The incubator PMC vote to let them out.
>
>The only country that ever invested significantly in such a system was
>Poland (other examples exist but the other bodies are subservient and
>generally advise more than consent). This was *one* of the times it was
>wiped off the map.
>
>I would suppose #2 would the be the most vested group and #1 be the second
>most (substituted for the board in the top level situation)... I'd suppose
>#3 would be the least vested group.
>
>The point? None, I just like pointing my finger childishly when someone
>does something silly (like create a tricameral voting system... pretty
>funny, spell check doesn't recognize it, though it finds bicameral)...
>
>-Andy
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: The incubator and Poland
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> So we're yack yacking about the incubator (again). The incubator AFAICT
> replicated a tricameral vote. To release you must have:
...
> The point? None, I just like pointing my finger childishly when someone
> does something silly (like create a tricameral voting system... pretty
> funny, spell check doesn't recognize it, though it finds bicameral)...
Tricameral vote means that three entities have to vote for the same
thing AFAIK, and this is not the case here.
The votes have different meanings, and AFAIK we need only two:
1 - someone at Apache votes to have the project come to Apache
(a PMC or the board)
2 - the Incubator votes to spin it off after incubation
I don't see the problem here, we are talking about two *distinct*
responsibilities.
If you refer to the previous "three parties vote simultaneously", I can
only agree that it sucks big time. That's why we are opting for a system
that clearly states that the one responsible for the thing gets the say.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org