geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC (was Re: [RTC] Clarification please from the PMC)
Date Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:59:37 GMT
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 <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> > On 7/2/06, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >> Please read Ken's original email:
> >>
> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/%3c4470FE4D.1090806@Golux.Com%3e
> >>
> >>
> >> 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:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24899.html?
>
> 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
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, 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
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message