From general-return-25938-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Aug 16 17:57:40 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 35829 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2010 17:57:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2010 17:57:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 78145 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2010 17:57:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 77970 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2010 17:57:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 77962 invoked by uid 99); 16 Aug 2010 17:57:35 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:57:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.47] (HELO mail-bw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.214.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:57:30 +0000 Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so2085492bwz.6 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:57:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=yziLN51c47DD3loeKQMfj6TEk9uBsHyPQ5ipE/XZIfU=; b=bHF5U0ONKe5PvY26pAwMDA6WYKKUOV9ufYz4oL0QDCkh/IZf2suzTJvLh3Jl4RmL4e PqHmCirdlL3WvtmWrbTjvuSwowFb/3iD0MKRihJe8rESexhc272GtnVoWDnfkIget4lk xX8P15HyRlz7vWhkzl4N633qCZmgJDgWHbJW8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=PyY24PwNlo1luPjdasTBQZX6MV7x1tJgrhl4yYYOtskbzB7DSC/WtsfB0V6Tae/8GA T3TH5JeCcbGwxjdIYQtycwSjgu50P20TvUlfqxEpwcrRm4+5DzN/tQl/u4bBaLro7s0Y Xzpm8P+noWsP+dboCpwJcmwQ1ZSDSIKz25F+M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.19.140 with SMTP id a12mr1698824bkb.133.1281981429155; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.78.202 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:57:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:57:09 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: an experiment From: Benson Margulies To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0003255556aeb186fa048df48f90 --0003255556aeb186fa048df48f90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 There is some obvious compromises opportunity here. On releases, the iPMC could decide, by internal convention, to let the involved three mentors (when there are three involved members) be the relevant voice. iPMC members could pledge to defer to the involved mentors unless they feel that there is some overwhelming reason to vote -1. On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for. Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent email at members@ that there was much more flexibility possible with committer status than with releases -- that the iPMC could indeed make a one-time, blanket, decision, that PPMC votes were sufficient for committer status. To cite an example to support my position, I'm pretty sure that GSOC students get commit privileges without formal PMC votes. However, if I am dense, and if the foundation requirements do require a real PMC vote for committer access, then the idea of my first paragraph would apply. On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Noel J. Bergman > wrote: > > Where are you seeing this "over-reach" problem to which you refer? I > have > > heard of a few isolated incidents, and those can be addressed. But by > far > > and way, the biggest complaint is LACK of involvement, e.g., > ... > > And most cases of PMC members getting involved in projects of which they > > aren't a Mentor have been with respect to release packaging, where the > > involvement has generally been valid and valuable, even if bothersome to > > those whose packages weren't quite up to snuff. > > > > But, seriously, if there is systemic overreaching, lets address *that* > > issue. > > The cases of "overreaching" in Subversion and OODT related to adding > new committers - not releases. So, I'm definitely in favor of Joe's > proposal to let the PPMC have control over who gets to be in the > community. -- justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org > > --0003255556aeb186fa048df48f90--