incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com>
Subject Re: Insanity (of the release process)
Date Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:22:24 GMT
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's what I understand:
>>>
>>> 1) Apache rule: all apache releases must be made by PMCs
>>> 2) Apache rule: a release needs at least 3 binding +1s and more +1s than -1s
>>> 3) from #1 and #2 it follows that all incubator releases must be made
>>> by the incubator PMC
>>
>>> If you see a way to fix this mess, please do. I suspect rule #1 is the
>>> whopper that is just quite hard to get around and from it follows a
>>> lot of other mess. I don't know exactly where that rule comes from,
>>> but it is very old and it has always seemed very solid, too. IANAL.
>>
>> Mechanically, it's possible to recharter Incubator PMC as a board committee
>> which has the authority to assemble and dissolve fully empowered PPMCs so
>> they could begin binding votes from the outset.  The 'P' would change from
>> 'pre' to 'provisional'.  I don't know if this is what we want to do, or not.
>
> The Board is trying to move away from Board committees.
>
> The IPMC is in charge of its operation. It can redefine the rules of
> releases as it pleases. The three +1 rule was developed to show that
> the PMC is "in charge" of the release, and is therefore legally liable
> for it. The IPMC can do whatever it likes around releases, as long as
> that process specifically claims or disclaims liability.

Ok, that is interesting (and probably more workable than a big reorg).
I still think we should claim liability.

Could we, for example, have a release process that is lazy-by-default
from the IPMC side and still claim that the ASF gets liability?

for example, to release:

1) PPMC must vote for the release according to their rules (which
should at least match the 3 +1 / majority rule requirements)
2) at least one PMC member must vote +1 (usually the mentor)
3) if there are no -1 votes, the PPMC sends the general@ list a
request for a release ACK, after they get that ACK from a PMC member,
they wait for 72 hours, and if there are still no -1s, the release is
approved.
4) if there are any -1 votes, then the rule becomes the normal 3 +1s
from PMC members / majority

Downside:
* more complex
* increased dependency on single person to teach the "basics"

Upside:
* better reflects relationship between incubator and PPMC
* more responsibility for project
* hopefully fewer stalled releases

thoughts?

Leo

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


Mime
View raw message