Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 59025 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2010 12:30:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2010 12:30:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 63618 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2010 12:30:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 62919 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2010 12:30:40 -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 62911 invoked by uid 99); 9 Sep 2010 12:30:39 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:30:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,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 williamstw@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.47] (HELO mail-yw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.213.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:30:32 +0000 Received: by ywa8 with SMTP id 8so593282ywa.6 for ; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:30:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=GBwFj0MM5h3TctmO/WhdpHi86h/y3+MGC2AO2lQ8YCY=; b=R8oTBqLk2UM/fQpHu9Bq5NZSvkKqbg8TQ+jrDHGDQU1DlyweXwWDJ2wAJ2y8SGkkuU 5R3vKcjHYFuy5Z9DAfwm2IadF/CvVXd+rzPVSoz2a7Ta6OdcIQDwVGKKDZVn9AXYuou+ K/QF0PHdkrqcAozqxOLYKQHymhp7RE3kE7m4Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=ZDQg1K2XnjmEOi330DCtmcBTvQfHvfYtyo/51iAEPYZoYJBzuyRpdez0ypjLCRNhne c8ruWhkySBF+NShA1jsHpjP98UNcSKQq3YN4HzhdLsBbOApnOqpxwXY+7mPp6ITFUrsM znfc1xCEL4IDH7wj9o9XVEq5qw5Euma2EX43E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.54.8 with SMTP id c8mr29412yba.46.1284035411917; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.153.1 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 05:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:30:11 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Role of Incubator PMC Votes From: Tim Williams To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm watching the "renaming" vote thread and I find it odd that folks are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC should only be relevant/binding when the matter in question is release/legal/trademark/etc-type issues that could [legally] effect the foundation. I dunno, this seems purely a project matter to me (like a logo, code, etc.) - second-guessing a project team on these sort of subjective things seems counter-productive to grooming self-sustaining projects to me. So, is this normal - why does the IPMC really get anything more than an "advising" role in these sorts of matters (and why is that healthy)? Thanks, --tim [1] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Incubator+Project+Management+Committee+%28PMC%29 [2] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Incubation+Policy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org