Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
From: Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:16:54 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
References: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPIEOHONAC.noel@devtech.com>
 <A70D9F23-5687-432E-AA6C-E5B9B777CC58@SUN.com>
 <19e0530f0705300559h3c624607l26c9c2ba8a692de2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <19e0530f0705300559h3c624607l26c9c2ba8a692de2@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200705302116.54841.niclas@hedhman.org>

On Wednesday 30 May 2007 20:59, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> I like the second option. thanks for bringing this up.

I don't. It assumes that the [Discuss] thread was all dandy. If not, then the 
vote passes in public and the Incubator PMC will become the 'bad guys who 
doesn't let X in'.

Looking at ASF at large, one of the more common ways of committer voting is;

 1. [Discuss] on private@
 2. [Vote] on private@
 3. [Vote] in public@.

How about teaching that is the process, we inject one extra step for podlings 
for legal reasons (if they now exist)?

 1. [Discuss] on private@podling
 2. [Vote] on private@podling
 3. [Vote] on private@incubator
 4. [Vote] in public@podling

IMHO, IPMC members only need to browse the Discuss & Vote threads a couple of 
minutes to give the heads-up. And if the mentors don't cry "No" this should 
be a swift exercise.

Cheers
Niclas

> On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by
> > the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
> > TLP is best practice for the incubator.
> >
> > The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC
> > members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
> > get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
> >
> > But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC
> > processes and voting based on the PPMC vote process.
> >
> > Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
> > new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
> > discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
> > On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
> > that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
> > have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
> >
> > So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
> > for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
> > PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator
> > PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC.
> > [Only the final vote is binding.]
> >
> > Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC
> > private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a formal
> > [VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and
> > vote of the community.
> >
> > This way, the incubator PMC can see that the PPMC "gets" the Apache Way.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > On May 30, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> > > Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
> > > I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
> > > distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
> > >
> > > The new text says
> > >
> > > Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote
> > > is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
> > > committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an
> > > Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the
> > > documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the
> > > Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.
> > >
> > > I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to
> > > reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > >> Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > >>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
> > >>> contributions.
> > >>
> > >> +1 != +0
> > >>
> > >>> I always thought (and the documentation at
> > >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
> > >>> binding.
> > >>
> > >> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong.  Notice that
> > >> elsewhere it
> > >> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were
> > >> PMC to
> > >> which someone added (P).  Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.
> > >> There is
> > >> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
> > >>
> > >> I don't know how to say this more clearly.  The PPMC is not a
> > >> recognized
> > >> entity in the ASF Bylaws.  The PMC is the legal entity, and only
> > >> PMC votes
> > >> count in any ASF project.  PPMC members should still vote, as can
> > >> other
> > >> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes
> > >> are binding.
> > >> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
> > >>
> > >> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta
> > >> Committer who
> > >> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count.  For
> > >> years
> > >> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta
> > >> is the
> > >> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that
> > >> didn't go
> > >> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
> > >>
> > >>> the documentation link above is out of date.
> > >>
> > >> It was never "in date".  It is wrong, regardless of date.
> > >>
> > >>      --- Noel
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > > Craig Russell
> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> > Craig Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer

I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug

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