incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shanti Subramanyam <shanti.subraman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Insanity (of the release process)
Date Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:19:07 GMT
I like Leo's proposal. With PMC members mentoring multiple projects, it 
is really a burden to try and get 3 votes for a release.

Shanti

Leo Simons wrote:
> 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
>
>   


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


Mime
View raw message