Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 78342 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2006 23:09:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Jul 2006 23:09:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 60927 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jul 2006 23:09:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 60281 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jul 2006 23:09:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 60270 invoked by uid 99); 2 Jul 2006 23:09:32 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:09:32 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [72.10.46.63] (HELO as.toolazydogs.com) (72.10.46.63) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:09:31 -0700 Received: (qmail 13576 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2006 16:09:09 -0700 Received: from c-24-7-76-123.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (24.7.76.123) by toolazydogs.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 2 Jul 2006 16:09:09 -0700 Message-ID: <44A85211.4050305@toolazydogs.com> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:09:05 -0700 From: "Alan D. Cabrera" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Macintosh/20060505) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC (was Re: [RTC] Clarification please from the PMC) References: <44A5D680.6060208@gmail.com> <44A6E2BA.9010605@toolazydogs.com> <44A72364.1090808@gmail.com> <44A7F29F.1040006@toolazydogs.com> <1b5bfeb50607021236tf522dfage374b7af8fe4fd50@mail.gmail.com> <44A84BC9.4080604@toolazydogs.com> <74e15baa0607021559icc7b91bpb5ce296116c72af5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <74e15baa0607021559icc7b91bpb5ce296116c72af5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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. Regards, Alan 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: >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >>