Mailing-List: contact bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com
 designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEZ-ge55=LjK-FvTUrhk8-YXPV=66HrvsC8hiX9_S5q-i6+EsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAPt9QwQxDqKpY69rCCx0ZJGngZsMkOUFi7vfqC1OZW5VTC8oHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<51002AB6.7060708@wandisco.com>
	<C2EF7D77-6EC2-483D-A34B-0FD809E2421C@wandisco.com>
	<510044AD.90708@wandisco.com>
	<CAEZ-ge55=LjK-FvTUrhk8-YXPV=66HrvsC8hiX9_S5q-i6+EsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:22:05 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAKoya91as_qVo4JADCTT4GKamPxZshMXbW02JaPm9J5oDJ2qtA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Getting IPMC members to vote Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
 0.4 (incubating)
From: Joachim Dreimann <joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com>
To: "bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org"
 <bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 <gary.martin@wandisco.com> wrote:

> On 23 January 2013 20:14, Branko =C4=8Cibej <brane@wandisco.com> 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 o=
f
>> 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:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-i=
ncubator-release-vote
> and noted that the wording "The conventional process is for the podling t=
o
> 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 a=
s
>> 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 o=
f
> 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