Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com
 designates 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAS6=7j4-EPUpGkAEWtQe2DTbVDr57t6+L3SkH-GZpafVqKzGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAS6=7id9H0qC09nPFboW6MTPf2JGTMAxiihBk-U-8XbrC-=bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiKvVvKY3k83C13i9kC68H8eqpOkXoop+-9WSf_C7b8O3OQ2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH29n6NEZbHz9onLink1_PJBYGd9OsdxFD4PyFAwpVJwmoaHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAS6=7j4-EPUpGkAEWtQe2DTbVDr57t6+L3SkH-GZpafVqKzGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 13:34:50 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAKQbXgAJzqyiREmbGY7qncCRPVQBqZ5XXq2yeiP9RJzY0zB6zg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Open enrollment
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 28 May 2012 13:22, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:

...

>> At a minimum, I think it would be wise for the incubator documentation
>> to tell new projects to announce a policy as part of their proposal,
>> so that others do not make the same mistake. That announcement could
>> be anything from "The initial committers will be made up exclusively
>> from existing contributors" to "We would like to consider potential
>> additional committers on a case-by-case basis" to "Anyone from the
>> Apache community is welcome to join as an initial committer." Then
>> there could be explicit discussion on the thread about the pros and
>> cons of the project's choice before the proposal went to a vote.
>
> I support the idea of proposal authors taking charge of destiny and overriding
> the flawed participation policies in the Incubator's documentation.
>
> However, I am uncomfortable with the exclusivity of language like "The initial
> committers will be made up exclusively from existing contributors".

Why? Specifically, imagine a new project coming into the incubator.
They have a vibrant and healthy community. They already operate
according to the Apache Way. They want to limit initial contributors
to those who have already demonstrated merit in the project. Their
justification is that everyone who is currently a committer earned
that right through hard work and they don't want to undermine that by
giving Joe Blogs the power of veto over critical decisions until they
too have proven themselves.

In such circumstances why, as an IPMC member, would you object to this
approach? Is it that in *some* circumstances you would object to
exclusivity whilst in others you would find it acceptable? If that is
the case then shouldn't it be up to champions to guide the proposal
wording?

Ross

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