incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Luciano Resende" <luckbr1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Date Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:22:34 GMT
+1 (non-binding)

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> | +1
> |
> | On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> | <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> |> Hi,
> |>
> |> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
> |> "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
> |> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
> |>
> |> There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
> |> that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
> |> members are required.
> |>
> |> That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
> |> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
> |>
> |>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the
> PPMC are
> |>> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If
> the vote is
> |>> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the
> proposer...
> |> So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
> |> so that we can clarify this and move on.
> |>
> |> -Bertrand
> |>
> |> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> |> <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> |>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> |>> ---
> |>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> |>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> |>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> |>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> |>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> |>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> |>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> |>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> |>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> |>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> |>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> |>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> |>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> |>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> |>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> |>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> |>> ---
> |>>
> |>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> |>> ---
> |>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> |>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> |>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> |>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> |>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> |>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> |>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> |>> vote threads by the PPMC.  *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> |>> the receipt of the vote.  This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> |>> consensus.  After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> |>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> |>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> |>> invitation process.*
> |>> ---
> |>>
> |>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> |>> full ASF board.  I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> |>> as well for Incubation, so there.  I don't like needless 'dual
> |>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> |>> oversight.
> |>>
> |>> WDYT?    -- justin
> |> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> |> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> |> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> |>
> |>
> |
> |
> |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
>
> iD8DBQFIX4W5gNg6eWEDv1kRAgR6AJ44JfQm/Fw4tLlcziLNMiQUIZRatwCfU2H7
> 2hhRwZXv1mUmsnfd6y6vAWw=
> =xfO0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

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


Mime
View raw message