Return-Path: 
 <general-return-14808-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 46443 invoked from network); 31 May 2007 20:08:34 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 31 May 2007 20:08:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 38932 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2007 20:08:35 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 38804 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2007 20:08:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:general-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 38788 invoked by uid 99); 31 May 2007 20:08:35 -0000
Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 May 2007 13:08:35 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [64.202.165.39] (HELO smtpauth14.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net)
 (64.202.165.39)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 31 May 2007 13:08:29 -0700
Received: (qmail 30697 invoked from network); 31 May 2007 20:08:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (24.15.193.17)
  by smtpauth14.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.39) with ESMTP;
 31 May 2007 20:08:06 -0000
Message-ID: <465F2B24.60706@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:08:04 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
References: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPIEOHONAC.noel@devtech.com>
 <44673C51-4E1D-4F34-AD46-50E5AE9AB9AD@SUN.com> <465D78A1.2050505@redhat.com>
 <62B90549-5D5B-410D-8068-8F92DEE813B2@SUN.com>
 <465D9428.9070008@bristowhill.com>
 <D896CD09-5BE6-4D3B-A8E1-5E1419357460@SUN.com>
 <465DFC9F.8070803@bristowhill.com>
 <765F513A-7363-4508-9652-4CDAB2735C58@SUN.com>
 <465E6D32.6060802@rowe-clan.net>
 <E430AE72-6A0A-42A1-BAA2-13CC2FCCF3F7@SUN.com>
In-Reply-To: <E430AE72-6A0A-42A1-BAA2-13CC2FCCF3F7@SUN.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> 
> On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
>>> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email
>>> with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's
>>> developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of getting the
>>> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is embarrassing
>>> to have a public vote fail or take a very long time because not enough
>>> incubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a
>>> committer.
>>
>> I'm strongly against this.
> 
> I'm sorry I can't tell what you are against, even after reading the
> following.
> 
> Are you suggesting that we should no ever recommend this as a possible
> option?

Correct.

>> If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you missed the issue.
>>
>> The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational to have
>> to reject a committer on a public list.
> 
> That's why I included "This is a good approach if you are
> <strong>sure</strong> of getting the
> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members".

Does this mean 4 of you were sitting at a hackathon table and decided, "HEY,
that's a good idea!  Jeremy would make a great committer!"

Did that raise a chance for others to point out why Jeremy wasn't accepted
or was actually kicked from committer status on Project X, or raise other
concerns?  It doesn't matter if you know three people who agree, the point
is that it's for all PMC members to consider.  And that a public vote will
undercut an honest dialog about that contributor's readiness to become a
committer or PPMC member.  That includes the opinions, even if they are
not binding, of the PPMC members who have probably had longer contact with
coders in their specific development arena.

I've been there, in a very unusual way - raising an objection to a "good
soul" of the ASF membership, a reader of a private PMC list, who had quite
honestly not earned local-merit to that project.  We are all adults, and
that didn't turn out 1/10th as badly as it could have, but it sensitized
me to this issue.  Many with objections simply would not/did not speak up.

I'm sure Jakarta participants can relate similarly uncomfortable instances.

> Are you suggesting that this approach is never good?

Correct.

Bill

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