geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC (was Re: [RTC] Clarification please from the PMC)
Date Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:09:05 GMT
Ahh, a little bell went off in my head.  When we were in CTR mode we 
never really had code related votes, per se.  That's why I don't recall 
the committer/PMC duality w/ respect to code changes.  I now realize how 
RTC brings out this distinction.


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> If the policy is that only PMC votes count for *everything*, then I
> think we should abolish the position of committer.  Having a status of
> "allowed to commit bug fixes only" does not make sense to me.
> If we intend to return to CTR at some point, then committer probably
> makes sense, but I think we should be very explicit about for which
> votes only PMC members have binding opinions and for which (if any)
> votes committer opinions are binding.  I feel like I was not at all
> clear on the authority of PMC and the PMC chair.  Did anything related
> to this come out of the docathon?
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> On 7/2/06, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>> > On 7/2/06, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
>> >> Please read Ken's original email:
>> >>
>> >> 

>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As far as not considering commiters votes binding, this has never 
>> been
>> >> the way Geronimo was run.  If things have changed and the PMC has
>> >> decided that this is the new way to go, ok.  But let there be no
>> >> confusion as to the way things used to work.
>> >
>> > What about this:
>> >
>> A comment in the middle of a long and arduous thread.  Not quite an
>> official notice that Ken and/or the PMC have changed their mind from
>> what was stated during the official announcement of the change to RTC
>> sent out the previous month.
>> > As far as binding votes go it's never been such a distinction between
>> > people heavily involved in Geronimo development and PMCers. We were
>> > pretty close to PMCers == committers and I don't remember a situation
>> > where -1 was issued. There were enough +1's from PMCers. Therefore,
>> > *I* would say it's almost impossible to compare what's happening now
>> > with what was in the past. The situation is new and uncomparable to
>> > anything as far as I understand it (and thus there're so many
>> > misunderstandings and discussion about what RTC really means).
>> So are you saying that it was your understanding that, all along during
>> the history of Geronimo, commiters votes never mattered?  I honestly
>> don't recall us making that distinction, ever.
>> IMHO, there is no misunderstanding to what RTC means now; it means 3 +1
>> PMC votes.  There is confusion not because we had been operating along
>> the lines of PMC votes only count for matters of code and now the
>> committee make up has changed.  There is confusion because Ken's
>> official announcement said 3 +1 committer votes.
>> >> Please confirm that this is the new way that the PMC has decided 
>> to run
>> >> things.
>> >
>> > It's never changed - only PMC votes are binding as outlined in
>> >, but I myself consider
>> > any vote binding as far as changes are concerned. A release is a legal
>> > stuff so it requires a special attention from ASF itself and thus the
>> > requirement about PMCers and their binding votes.
>> Jacek, I understand what the HTML page says.  I am not arguing against
>> what it says nor am I arguing against the value of such a position.  I
>> am one of the founding members of Geronimo and I don't recall that we
>> ever made a distinction between commiters and PMC members when it came
>> to what gets checked into the code base.
>> If you guys want to change the way we've been previously working, more
>> specifically in regards to RTC, then fine.  Let's do it.  But don't
>> pretend that we all have been operating that way all along because we
>> have not.
>> Regards,
>> Alan

View raw message