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: [VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)
Date Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:37:21 GMT
-1

The proposed process improves on the existing process by aligning it  
better with the process by which a PMC communicates with the board.

But as I've said earlier, there is no indication here that three +1  
votes are needed from incubator PMC members.

It makes people crazy if they have to look in multiple places to find  
what they need to do. This paragraph should make it clear what a  
successful vote would be.

 From the discussion earlier, there would have to be three +1 votes  
from incubator PMC members prior to a lazy vote. And there's no  
discussion of what the process is if there are not three binding +1  
votes in the PPMC.

Needs work.

Craig

On Jun 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz 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
>

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!


Mime
View raw message