Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com
 designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAS6=7ggSkU-Ccxbucyb69VNdBv0KaCMOd6kTDXo15Jqhi0Kbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+ULb+vSvtWjvQYH5LQvSfZksi5GhsbahtHQZNo=Qm-CZNVhZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGU5spdnS06Cfm-3_siV5NQRc_2uPiF5Dw9JD1bbPGxYq8RjPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1349944338.12771.140661139289233.0B44EF33@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<CA+ULb+sFF9-f0ThamxjTCfwXfpCXRRE2aOpNd9tXVqV4YbBdUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADiKvVttuu3P6Qmo3u87E1-D3J-hzQV43N8OYk_jo+xdbadkJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+ULb+svjWdcW6oHBaqngY8gDKyYxnRQ=tYXeet-Qt0XAVbUMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS6=7iskGov_-Zk0ktbiSCiay3dgxdianTU9incbHwmNEYHkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKQbXgAXZmwH6ky=MLGnNEVbeX1khnBWqMjK+YYRstgsoHdk9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS6=7ggSkU-Ccxbucyb69VNdBv0KaCMOd6kTDXo15Jqhi0Kbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:33:31 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAKQbXgAOC2hhuhNaa0Txj3frChgwnRHrDFJYyGua_Nr0yF=Maw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Jr. Mentor role
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044280f6962f6904cbf50aa1

--f46d044280f6962f6904cbf50aa1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sent from my tablet
On Oct 13, 2012 2:59 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Ross Gardler
> <rgardler@opendirective.com> 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
the
> podling's dev list.
>

Agreed.

> That the Incubator's release process would grind to a halt without
"freelance"
> 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.

Ross

> >> The first AOO release got my freelance IPMC vote because it was clear
that
> >> they knew what they were doing and were taking their role as IP
stewards
> >
> > (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
first
> > release).
>
> After reviewing the thread at <
http://markmail.org/message/2penzb453qzo55rz>
> and seeing people competently and earnestly work through a thorny issue,
I'm
> inclined to draw the opposite conclusion.  Rather than a failure of
oversight,
> 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
IP
> >> 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
when
> 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
Apache
> PMC scrutinizing individual messages to a commits list.
>
> For the record, my review of the first AOO release candidate was
considerably
> more thorough than the norm.  In fact, I doubt you will find a more
thorough
> review of an incubating release by a non-Mentor in the last two years, an=
d
> perhaps not for a long time before that.
>
> Here are links to the review thread and to my final VOTE:
>
>     http://markmail.org/thread/b4wdzilemtu36i4a
>     http://markmail.org/message/ejs6qw6kpr22o3ps
>
> > It seems all you reviewed was some mailing list traffic.
>
> That's completely inaccurate.
>
> Please review the review thread.  I went several rounds with J=FCrgen
Schmidt,
> 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
file
> and got RAT passing.  When I found that the svn tag and the release
archive
> 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 ar=
e
> > binding.
>
> In my opinion, it's ridiculous that J=FCrgen Schmidt's heroics on the fir=
st
AOO
> release did not earn him a binding vote on the second.
>
> When it comes to release voting, the Incubator does not recognize merit,
and
> the Incubator does not encourage self-government.  The miserable
experience of
> podlings as they twist in the wind for weeks awaiting "freelance" votes
from
> 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
perform
> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

--f46d044280f6962f6904cbf50aa1--