bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joachim Dreimann <>
Subject Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.4 (incubating)
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:22:05 GMT
I also fully subscribe to the fact that we need to improve community
diversity, that part is not red tape.

- Joe

On 23 Jan 2013, at 22:19, Gary Martin <> wrote:

> 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
> position.
>>> 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.
> Cheers,
>    Gary

View raw message