incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <>
Subject Re: piling on
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:50:04 GMT
I guess I misread the proposed bootstrap procedure and its  

> - bootstrap the PPMC from the PMC (assigning Mentors)
> - election by the PPMC of project contributors to the PPMC
> - election by the PPMC of Committers

1. I was wondering why incubating project committers who are not PPMC  
members can't vote for new committers. Of course they can still  
propose the candidates and leave the vote up to PPMC. Fair enough.

2. Ok, so ASF existing committers who sign up as committers (not  
mentors) on the initial proposal would have to go through a PPMC vote  
as well. That's a good solution.

I am all for implementing this procedure then.


On Jul 19, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>> PPMC can oversee the process and should be able to veto proposed
>> committers without sufficient earned karma, but I don't see the
>> downsides of self-government of the incubating project.
> The PPMC *is* the self-governing body for the Incubating project.   
> Which is
> why I keep saying that the recommendation should be to have at  
> least three
> (3) Mentors on the project, thus enabling the PPMC to actually hold  
> binding
> votes without needing to wait on the rest of the PMC (although we  
> should
> still be included).  Without at least three mentors, a PPMC lacks the
> necessary minimum number of votes, and must wait for other PMC  
> members to
> vote on each issue.
> As for the question of whether or not a candidate has "sufficient  
> earned
> karma", the PPMC, following the explanation above, has the ability  
> to make
> the decision for each situation.
> 	--- Noel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message