community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:36:11 GMT
The segment (see below)t in the request for graduation to the board is a
remnant of an idea that is brought forward by many project in incubation.


> RESOLVED, that the initial Apache NAME PMC be and hereby is
>  tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to
>  encourage open development and increased participation in the
>  Apache NAME Project; and be it further


It is something that keeps getting in without any consideration regarding
its impact. Not only within the graduating project, but also within the
IPMC or the board. If it is in and ratified through a majority vote (first
by the IPMC, subsequently) by the board  it brings forward 2 actions:

   1.  the newly established must take actions on defining, approving (and
   maintaining), publishing bylaws, and
   2. the board must see to it that it will be done.

In threads elsewhere I have questioned this, and my take-away from postings
by several (ex) board members is that it is of no importance, no need to
follow through, no desire to police.

Seeing that there is no desire among others to address this,I have stopped
bringing this issue forward in (recent) vote-for-graduation requests in
general@incubator.a.o.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In 2015 I asked a similar quiestion in this same forum. See [1]. I may
> shed some light.
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a4095177b9630643c8957e91b1e1b9
> 77b521db170767eb17eccec9f7@1426899898@%3Cdev.community.apache.org%3E
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
>
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.
> invalid> wrote:
>
>> The downside to majority rule when it comes to personnel voting is that
>> it can lead to a situation where a company having a majority on the pmc can
>> increase their majority by voting in additional employees without the
>> minority having any way to provide a check on that exercise of power.  Yes
>> this has come up in the past.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > on https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
>> it
>> > describes the process of bringing in a new committer for a "typical
>> > project".
>> >
>> > But in the "Discussion" it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it
>> really
>> > "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers? I can't recall
>> > seeing that anywhere, not saying it is incorrect, but asking whether it
>> > really is "typical".
>> >
>> > Perhaps we should provide links to a handful of well-known project's
>> > processes, to both give a template for projects to work with as well as
>> > different approaches.
>> >
>> > Anyone has any opinion on this matter?
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > --
>> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>
>>
>

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