Re: Add voting guide to incubator docs?

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

While the subject document is being prepared, I've update the guides/ 
ppmc.html to add some text with the rationale of the PPMC/PMC voting  
process.

The small, easy to overlook, sentence is now two paragraphs.

<guide>
Voting a new committer is one of the most important functions of any  
PMC, and the Incubator is no different. Only votes of Incubator PMC  
members are binding (counted) when considering a new committer. But  
the members of the PPMC, with direct oversight over the podling, are  
best able to judge the qualifications and suitability of a proposed  
new committer. Therefore, the process for voting a new committer into  
an Incubator podling is a bit more complex than voting a new committer  
into a Top Level Project.

The role of the PPMC in this process is recommendation to the  
Incubator PMC that one of the contributors to the podling is worthy of  
committership. The recommendation should reflect consensus of the  
PPMC. When it comes to voting, an affirmative vote of at least three  
Incubator PMC members is needed. Since the PPMC often contains only  
three Incubator PMC members (the podling's Mentors), the challenge for  
a PPMC to vote a new committer is to obtain three or more Incubator  
PMC members' votes. If all of the Mentors vote in favor of the new  
committer, the required number of votes is obtained, and the vote is  
submitted to the Incubator PMC for approval by acclamation (silent  
approval, or lazy consensus). But if during private voting in the  
PPMC, fewer than three Incubator PMC members vote, the conclusion of  
the PPMC vote can only be considered a recommendation, and the vote  
must be put to the Incubator PMC.

</guide>

Let me know what you think. Or better, CTR the document yourself. ;-)

Craig


On Aug 24, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Martijn Dashorst
> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is always a lot of confusion on whose votes are binding in our
>> podlings. The PPMC guide has a small, easy to overlook sentence which
>> states the obviously not so obvious: "And note that binding votes are
>> those cast by Incubator PMC members."
>>
>> Any objections to crafting such a document, and who would want to  
>> take
>> the lead? As this would be a guide, this would be CTR.
>>
>> IMO a structure would be something like this:
>>
>> Voting
>> - when to vote
>> - how to vote
>> - whose vote is binding
>> - when to nofify the Incubator PMC
>
> sounds good to me
>
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

Craig L 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: Add voting guide to incubator docs?

[Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>]

Sounds much better.
The key thing here is to highlight the responsibilities of the PPMC, the
mentors and the IPMC and whose votes binding (or not).
This will ensure that everybody understands what they are supposed to do.

PPMC only recommends committers and the voting in the private list is to
show consensus within the podling.
Mentors are also responsible for voting in the private list as its *only*
their votes that really counts.

IPMC will only step in if
a) It has any objections about the suitability of the committer.
b) If there are fewer than 3 mentor votes in the vote thread.
Otherwise it is assumed that the IPMC has ratified the decision via silent
approval.

Regards,

Rajith

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:

> While the subject document is being prepared, I've update the
> guides/ppmc.html to add some text with the rationale of the PPMC/PMC voting
> process.
>
> The small, easy to overlook, sentence is now two paragraphs.
>
> <guide>
> Voting a new committer is one of the most important functions of any PMC,
> and the Incubator is no different. Only votes of Incubator PMC members are
> binding (counted) when considering a new committer. But the members of the
> PPMC, with direct oversight over the podling, are best able to judge the
> qualifications and suitability of a proposed new committer. Therefore, the
> process for voting a new committer into an Incubator podling is a bit more
> complex than voting a new committer into a Top Level Project.
>
> The role of the PPMC in this process is recommendation to the Incubator PMC
> that one of the contributors to the podling is worthy of committership. The
> recommendation should reflect consensus of the PPMC. When it comes to
> voting, an affirmative vote of at least three Incubator PMC members is
> needed. Since the PPMC often contains only three Incubator PMC members (the
> podling's Mentors), the challenge for a PPMC to vote a new committer is to
> obtain three or more Incubator PMC members' votes. If all of the Mentors
> vote in favor of the new committer, the required number of votes is
> obtained, and the vote is submitted to the Incubator PMC for approval by
> acclamation (silent approval, or lazy consensus). But if during private
> voting in the PPMC, fewer than three Incubator PMC members vote, the
> conclusion of the PPMC vote can only be considered a recommendation, and the
> vote must be put to the Incubator PMC.
>
> </guide>
>
> Let me know what you think. Or better, CTR the document yourself. ;-)
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>  On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Martijn Dashorst
>> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is always a lot of confusion on whose votes are binding in our
>>> podlings. The PPMC guide has a small, easy to overlook sentence which
>>> states the obviously not so obvious: "And note that binding votes are
>>> those cast by Incubator PMC members."
>>>
>>> Any objections to crafting such a document, and who would want to take
>>> the lead? As this would be a guide, this would be CTR.
>>>
>>> IMO a structure would be something like this:
>>>
>>> Voting
>>> - when to vote
>>> - how to vote
>>> - whose vote is binding
>>> - when to nofify the Incubator PMC
>>>
>>
>> sounds good to me
>>
>> - robert
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
> Craig L 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!
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Rajith Attapattu
Red Hat
http://rajith.2rlabs.com/