Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of james.strachan@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
        b=FGmaCOxITknmQ11Bq4r+lJh97eioF33RRSrCAIVfCHBalkLaHxgB/IrtF4kQEPlYFYOTtmgPNiSvTBi0eimM3jMgLQ3AKUFta4RaT3skS9q1ivuGD/o1jWiOvO2SOQPkO81uC0fLzdAZxQayHPLzYtAEVebeg9b7WYX0MMPTvsg=
Message-ID: <ec6e67fd0604100311o732b9b2ey72a4abc09a01fced@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:11:38 +0100
From: "James Strachan" <james.strachan@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator
 PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 4/10/06, Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:44:45AM +0100, James Strachan wrote:
> > Just a reminder to the Incubator-PMC - could you please vote to
> > approve this release. We had 5 votes from the Geronimo PMC within 24
> > hours of calling the vote and so far after 4 days we've just had one
> > vote from the Incubator PMC (excluding myself who's in all camps).
> >
> > Given the inactivity of the Incubator-PMC on the ActiveMQ project
> > (previous releases were met with similar levels vigourous support ;-)
>
> The apparent inability of the incubator PMC to vote sucks and is a furthe=
r
> indicator something is wrong

Agreed

> but nevertheless I'm not going to +1 (or -1)
> releases I haven't investigated in detail myself, so +0 from me.

At least you voted - many thanks :)


> > and given the activity of the Geronimo PMC in the project,  maybe its
> > time to consider graduating ActiveMQ?
>
> I think the inability of the incubator PMC to fulfill its duties should
> not be an argument for or against graduation of a project under
> incubation. Some problems should not be routed around. They should be
> fixed.

OK.

So how about we broaden membership of the Incubator PMC to include
anyone interested from another PMC (rather than just Apache Members
only)? Or that members of the sponsoring PMC can be included as
binding voters in the approval process of podling releases from the
incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get
involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on
their behalf.

Either way the effect would be the same; allowing folks who are
actually interested in a podling being able to approve its releases;
with the Incubator PMC members still having a -1 if there is anything
about the release they are unhappy with.

--

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org