From general-return-15264-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed Jul 11 22:27:49 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 22356 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2007 22:27:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Jul 2007 22:27:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 84501 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2007 22:27:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 84386 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2007 22:27:47 -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 84373 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jul 2007 22:27:47 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:47 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.249 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.249] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.249) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:44 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b33so323201ana for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JjAktOzv6b22oUE/7hR2MaoV20CVAbKdoEXMRSqa7nLZQUbgSHPNX0e98cq0o/zk6gbesKDo+KBXEZJoqsWzY7AGgCbfqFIgHDNjZTa1VsgGQYSPcCb3lt1Z5T7Wu0wTap0F0y9ikLwJotJpN6HRkfJNav1vRN7FLSZVQX6qh9g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Gbc+EYb0t7Y0nIYt9bbPkHddyErUpVc08n4HIrPoc6XFDgFA5lNdw7o7kMzc8tq08+TyfQO0LUSB0IyCOLB7BQftfzf5FQPe7V6eZ4jqv0TcDM/fUTd0UGxtgWrzHVPOK4/ggPSbGM6sJ5HIwzDCJBf2FkkLWMbWXmVp0OZXhEE= Received: by 10.143.2.19 with SMTP id e19mr436830wfi.1184192842093; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.104.4 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:27:22 +0100 From: "robert burrell donkin" To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator new committer redux In-Reply-To: <94D208ED-2757-476B-A666-0EF36ED32D58@SUN.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9A4D5ACE-110D-4838-A645-4925104B6326@SUN.com> <94D208ED-2757-476B-A666-0EF36ED32D58@SUN.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 7/2/07, Craig L Russell wrote: > Hi, > > On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:10 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote: > > > > > Craig L Russell writes: > > > >> The thread has died down with no consensus, so I'm going to try > >> again. > > > > I apologize for being absent from these threads for the last month. > > Life got busy and one of the things that got dropped was the incubator > > general list. > > > > I don't want to rehash everything that's been discussed before, but > > here's my opinions as an IPMC member: > > > > I'd prefer that the decision making stays close to the PPMC. If we > > need the IPMC to check off on PPMC decisions, fine. That should be > > possible via the mentors. But let's not make this any more > > bureaucratic than necessary. > > I agree that the Incubator should groom the PPMC toward self- > governance. But that doesn't mean that the Incubator PMC can avoid > its responsibilities. i too would prefer a solution where the decision stays closer to the PPMC but i think that some process is needed. seems best to accept this reasonable solution now and look for improvements later. > > Thus I'm in favor of only ONE vote. > > That's why I proposed that a vote occur simultaneously on both > private lists. > > > > Furthermore, I'm not completely convinced by Noel's argument that the > > PPMC is a figment of our imagination. Sorry, Noel, don't mean to pick > > on you here. :-) > > I can't claim to have read every document that pertains to this > issue, but as far as the Board is concerned, PPMC's don't exist. They > are a construction of the Incubator in accordance with the > Incubator's charter to provide guidance to subprojects. > > According to Apache Foundation how-it-works [1] which I'm assuming is > normative, PMC members have the right to propose new committers. And > the PMC as a whole is responsible for project governance, which > includes new committers. IMO PPMCs are not part of the organisational structure of apache but never are they figments of our collective imagination. PMC approval is required for new committers (anyone can propose new committers). > > My point is, if the IPMC choses to delegate committer voting > > responsibilities to PPMCs, then the PPMC votes are just as 'binding' > > as IPMC votes. AFAIK, there's no legal barrier for this to happen, > > only procedural ones. > > The discussion here is on the process (procedure) to create new > committers in the incubator while staying within the Incubator's > charter within the Foundation's bylaws. Which means to me that the > Incubator PMC must decide (vote) on new committers. I'm not convinced > yet that the Incubator PMC can decide to let another group (PPMC) > decide without voting to accept the other group's decision. I guess > that's a bit of a legal question. IMHO it's an organisational one (rather than a legal one) but i agree that it seems active PPMC approval is needed > If we can pop the stack a few frames, the reason I'm pursuing this is > that I've seen several examples over the past few months where PPMC > votes were taken without the Mentors voting, the PPMC tried to get > the new committer on board, root ignored the request, and a general > melee occurred. Also from personal experience, a new project has no > idea how to get a new committer on board. There seem to be as many > opinions (conflicting) as Incubator PMC members. different projects have very different ideas about how much of a hurdle committership should be. there is active disagreement amongst the membership on this issue. this means that electing committers is going to be hard for the IPMC. IMHO this isn't the best forum for this debate. the incubator needs a process and craig's proposal is reasonable and is likely to be as close to consensus as we're likely to get. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org