incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Jr. Mentor role
Date Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:33:31 GMT
Sent from my tablet
On Oct 13, 2012 2:59 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Ross Gardler
> <> wrote:
> > Nobody, in my opinion, sh8old be voting on a release without having
> > conducted the appropriate verifications themselves.
> -0
> I agree -- but that's not going far enough.
> In my view, no one should vote on a release unless they're subscribed to
> podling's dev list.


> That the Incubator's release process would grind to a halt without
> IPMC votes exposes a systemic flaw.

Also agreed. I think Jukka's release taskforce idea is a good way to
address this.

With respect to the rest of the thread, all very valid but I think the
above points are the important ones.


> >> The first AOO release got my freelance IPMC vote because it was clear
> >> they knew what they were doing and were taking their role as IP
> >
> > (As a mentor I also voted +1 so don't take my next comments personally)
> >
> > This is a perfect example of why proper reviews are necessary.  In the
> > second AOO release a problem was discovered (that was present in the
> > release).
> After reviewing the thread at <>
> and seeing people competently and earnestly work through a thorny issue,
> inclined to draw the opposite conclusion.  Rather than a failure of
> this seems like an example of successful empowerment and self-policing.
> In the real world, IP bugs happen.  (Just look at all the slop we see in
> LICENSE and NOTICE files.)  To my mind, what matters most is not whether a
> project can avoid all IP bugs forever, but whether the team possesses
both the
> capacity and the will to detect and dispatch IP bugs efficiently.
> >> , it is much more important that the community members own the task of
> >> management themselves than that they pass any sort of superficial
> >> documentation review.
> >
> > Isn't that a contradiction? If you voted +1 on the grounds of the PPMC
> > knowing what they we doing isn't that a the most "superficial of
> > documentation reviews"?
> My position is that the oversight mechanisms generally employed by the
> Incubator, such as license header scans, are inherently superficial even
> executed conscientiously.  A truly rigorous IP audit would proceed either
> line-by-line, or commit-by-commit to match up with the standard of an
> PMC scrutinizing individual messages to a commits list.
> For the record, my review of the first AOO release candidate was
> more thorough than the norm.  In fact, I doubt you will find a more
> review of an incubating release by a non-Mentor in the last two years, and
> perhaps not for a long time before that.
> Here are links to the review thread and to my final VOTE:
> > It seems all you reviewed was some mailing list traffic.
> That's completely inaccurate.
> Please review the review thread.  I went several rounds with Jürgen
> though the work was spread out across multiple people and multiple lists.
> LICENSE and NOTICE were reformulated and we built consensus for the new
> approach both here and on legal-discuss.  We pored over the rat-excludes
> and got RAT passing.  When I found that the svn tag and the release
> did not match, we had a discussion about scripting release builds.  We
> discussed why the file name had to include the string "incubating", file
> formats for sums and sigs, etc, etc...
> > I encourage us to empower more people who do the work so their vot3s are
> > binding.
> In my opinion, it's ridiculous that Jürgen Schmidt's heroics on the first
> release did not earn him a binding vote on the second.
> When it comes to release voting, the Incubator does not recognize merit,
> the Incubator does not encourage self-government.  The miserable
experience of
> podlings as they twist in the wind for weeks awaiting "freelance" votes
> disintested IPMC members is the inevitable result.
> I'm glad that Roman wants to do his part to spare Helix from that fate,
and I
> wish him the best of luck.  Personally, I have made a decision not to
> any more freelance reviews.  It is difficult to do them well, and each +1
> serves to perpetuate a rotten system.
> Marvin Humphrey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message