incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Date Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:48:13 GMT
Hi Niclas,

There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of  
voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to  
become a committer. This would have to be after the private votes are  
done and before the public vote. So after the nominee accepts, they  
suddenly see a [vote] thread regarding their candidacy on the dev  
list and wonder what *that* is about.

I think a public "welcome to the new committer" would be sufficient  
"feel good" instead of the phony public vote.

Craig

On May 30, 2007, at 6:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> 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
>

Craig Russell
DB PMC, OpenJPA PMC
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo



Mime
View raw message