Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" <avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 06:47:55 -0800
Message-Id: <200212191447.gBJElsX07737@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Pan/0.9.7 (Unix)
From: "Greg Stein" <gstein@apache.org>
To: "Avalon Developers List" <avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: PMC votes ( Re: [Vote] Phoenix 4.0.3 release.)
References: <000801c2a767$c7e1a880$df00a8c0@acsdom1.citius.com>
 <3E01D636.9030307@apache.org>

In article <3E01D636.9030307@apache.org>, "Stephen McConnell"
<mcconnell@apache.org> wrote:

> Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
>>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>>
>>>If you want something to be considered as ratified by the PMC then the
>>>PMC have to vote on it on the PMC list - otherwise its not a PMC vote.

Nah. The PMC should be equal to the active developers, so they ought to
be in both places. A vote anywhere is still demonstrable that the PMC is
providing the necessary oversight.

[ recall that the intent is to simply show that the PMC is in charge and
is responsible for all code changes and releases; that can then be used
to make the ASF responsible for the code, rather than individuals; it
doesn't matter *where* the PMC/ASF takes charge -- only that it does so
and can be demonstrated ]

>...
>>You lost me Steve.  I personally don't think that releases should be
>>decided on the PMC list.  A release is something we all should be
>>excited about, and support.  That's the community side of me speaking.

It can happen either place. Again: as long as it can reasonbly be shown
that the PMC is the group making the release. If the PMC'ers are doing
that on the dev@ list, then we're all right.

IMO, yes: it should be on the dev list.

>...
> The board is reasonably clear about the fact that it increases its
> exposure at the point of release of a product.  For a release to occur,
> the board needs notification of this by the PMC Chair.

Easy there. A release can occur at any point, at the whim of the PMC. The
Board doesn't need any kind of notification. We *do* want to know about
it within the PMC's quarterly report to the Board (and hopefully, some
portion of the Board will know about it before then). The Board is *not*
a gating factor to a release. Do the release, and simply let the Board
know in the report.

>  The question is
> - is a vote of the committers on a product release binding on the Chair
>  to notify the board, and is the Chair's notification on a non-PMC
> decision binding on the Board.  My impression is after reading a bunch
> of really dull stuff is that it isn't - bacause the Board only
> recognizes the PMC and the PMC Chair. I.e. if your want recognition of
> liability by Apache - you have to push this up from the committer
> community to the PMC to the Board.

The PMC can act anywhere it wants. And really: the Board is entirely
uninvolved in the release process. The PMC Chair is an officer of the
corporation and is empowered to act on behalf of the ASF. The Board has
the power to do "anything" but it isn't directly or indirectly
responsible for the code [releases]. That responsibility lies squarely on
the shoulders of the PMC Chair.

The short of it is: don't worry about the Board. It has nothing to do
with what you guys need and want to do. We have no responsibilities w.r.t
Avalon, its development, or its releases. We want to track what the PMC
is doing, and we have the right/responsibility to ensure that moves along
smoothly, but we're 99% uninvolved.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
gstein@apache.org ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>