incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <>
Subject RE: an experiment
Date Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:22:00 GMT
Chris A Mattmann wrote:

> From my point of view, it would be nice for podlings with active mentors
> to be able to guide their own decisions, especially if there are 3 active
> mentors and they approve. For example in our case in OODT, we can achieve
> consensus and obtain much of the necessary VOTEs and oversight from our
> mentors like Justin and Ian and myself.

Well, that's sufficient, Chris.  There should be no "nice to have" aspect.
The only requirement is that the PMC has the ability to oversee.  If we can
streamline that process, great.

> I'm not sure that teaching the podlings that once they do a committer VOTE
> with the PPMC that they then have to do an IPMC vote after that is really
> teaching them the Apache way b/c this isn't the way it'll work when they
> graduate.

> I think so long as there are active mentors shepherding the experienced
> role on the project, then VOTEs at the PPMC level should be all that's
> required.

The problem is that the PPMC has no standing.  I keep telling people to stop
using the term IPMC.  It is the Incubator PMC.  The terms IPMC and PPMC make
them look somehow equivalent.

Now, because you have 3+ PMC members in the project, those votes have
standing, and suffice so long as the rest of the PMC is aware of and has the
opportunity to exercise oversight.  The PMC need not vote unless someone has
a good reason to cast a -1.  Again, I'm all for streamlining, as long as it
supports oversight.

	--- Noel

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message