bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <>
Subject Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.4 (incubating)
Date Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:19:35 GMT
On 23 January 2013 20:14, Branko ─îibej <> wrote:

> On 23.01.2013 20:45, Joe Dreimann wrote:
> > I don't know if it's allowed to combine both votes, but I'm in favour of
> it if it is.
> It's not. IPMC procedures dictate that the project community shall do
> everything necessary to produce an Apache release, then the IPMC will
> review those results by means of a second release vote. The idea being
> that as long as the project is a podling, it's learning the ropes.

I was pretty sure that was the case but I happened to check here:
and noted that the wording "The conventional process is for the podling to
follow the usual Apache process" is quite suggestive that there is the
potential for something other than a conventional process. What confuses me
is that I felt that I knew it was definitely a two stage vote - did I get
that from a different source? Anyway, it seemed worth checking.

> Note that you wouldn't really gain much by going straight to the IPMC,
> since that vote thread is initialized with existing mentor votes.

Well, I could try to argue advantages of only having the possibility of
just 72 hours of voting but I am not attempting to get a change in the
rules of the incubator so it is all moot.

> > In relation to the currently stalled voting, I'd like to propose Gary as
> a future IPMC member. Is there a process for this?
> As soon as he becomes an ASF member, he can also become an IPMC member.

Sounds good for some far off future when Bloodhound is out of incubation.
If it were possible before then it would just seem like an abuse of the

>  > Also or alternatively, is there a process for recruiting further
> mentors? Or is it "simply" a case of picking out potential mentors and
> asking them?
> It's more or less a matter of asking on the IPMC. Really, though, this
> project has enough active mentors, and relying on purely mentor votes
> sounds like "cheating".

We already have enough IPMC members in principle but everyone has limited
time and I do not feel that it is right to insist on their vote. In
addition, while I want votes to be completed quickly I would also prefer
new people examining our release each time as this increases the chance of
spotting issues that we have missed.

> The proper way to avoid blocking on release votes is to graduate. :)
> Which I believe this community is ready for. Except for the community
> diversity issue, which you're all actively working on.
> I know it's frustrating, but even though I'm typically prepared to cut
> through a lot of red tape, I do feel that community diversity is
> important. And we all know exactly how diverse this particular community
> is.
I have no objection at all to that point of view.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message