From general-return-11271-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Oct 03 18:47:32 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7155 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2006 18:47:25 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2006 18:47:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 93103 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2006 18:47:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 92972 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2006 18:47:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 92944 invoked by uid 99); 3 Oct 2006 18:47:05 -0000 Received: from idunn.apache.osuosl.org (HELO idunn.apache.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.84) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:47:05 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= Received: from [66.112.202.2] ([66.112.202.2:42369] helo=mail.devtech.com) by idunn.apache.osuosl.org (ecelerity 2.1.1.8 r(12930)) with ESMTP id D2/68-08153-620B2254 for ; Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:47:02 -0700 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.devtech.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.0rc3) with SMTP ID 742 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 14:46:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Noel J. Bergman" To: Subject: RE: Policy on Initial Committership Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 14:46:53 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 In-Reply-To: <895AE1B0-2F86-4B58-BF0F-3334AF9F363A@jaguNET.com> Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Jim Jagielski wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread: > > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC > > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members > > - The PPMC elects Committers > -1 from Jim. > I think that the initial PPMC should stay as documented, Documented where? Or rather, WHICH documentation? I don't mean the URL. I mean the current web site, or the proposal under comment, since the proposal under comment does exactly what you're suggesting should be done. > since it gets the podling off on the right start, bootstrapping > the PPMC with those who are already, hopefully, major movers in > the community. No kidding?! Really? Great idea! What exactly did you think that > > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC > > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members meant? Was it really so unclear that "additional PPMC Members" would be "those who are already, hopefully, major movers in the community." Look at Jason's example of the first two people added to the PPMC. Or your own comment that "my hope was that we could setup the PPMC quickly so that other committers could be added in soon, as chosen by the PPMC." Exactly as it ought to work, IMO. So what's the problem? > This simply means that during the proposal cycle the mentors > and the sponsors and initial list of committers requires more > oversight. And the reason why we cannot leave this to the Mentors and "those who are already, hopefully, major movers in the community" is ... ? > Or, if you prefer, each podling proposal specifies exactly > Sponsor Organization > Sponsor > Mentor(s) > Initial PPMC > Initial Committers So we have to vote on each person on those lists before we vote on the project, since we've already had many complaints both about piling on and being excluded. And then we've got Roy's comment that the Incubator PMC isn't equipped to make those decisions, so that leaves us with what? > note that requiring the initial PPMC also implies, IMO, that > 1 is not the optimal number of Mentors, but at least 3 or > more would be required. Already desirable if they want to have any decision making ability whatsoever. > Since we already have some issues with podlings with "large" > numbers of Mentors, this leads the incubator down a path I > don't think we want. Such as? --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org