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: local policy)
From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>,
        "Joe
 Schaefer" <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews
Thread-Index: AQHN8OduGiT8l5snP06CWd9O5x4MDphF8z2AgACH6gD//3vzAA==
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:44:23 +0000
Message-ID: <FA2D97DFC830824E9040174E7F89744924FCB5CB@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL>
In-Reply-To: <1358012220.41647.YahooMailNeo@web124706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <DBFC969E107F27409753362A3591EFA9@ad.jpl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Totally agree, Joe.

Cheers,
Chris

On 1/12/13 9:37 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The thing is, as far as risk management
>goes, the vetting we do on general@incubator
>is largely ceremonial.  The real responsible
>review work is done by people who are reviewing
>commit activity, and it is a shame we don't
>do a better job of empowering these conscientious
>reviewers with a binding vote on a release.
>
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
>>To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>; Joe
>>Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:30 PM
>>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews
>>=20
>>I agree with you on this Joe. A lot of times my metric is more
>>responsiveness and participation than in legal/language intricacies. More
>>power to folks who are good at that, it's just not me.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Chris
>>
>>On 1/12/13 9:07 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>One of my long time pet peeves with how we
>>>PMC members participate in vetting releases
>>>is our penchant for focusing too much on the
>>>policies surrounding license and notice info.
>>>I really think our exclusive focus on things
>>>that really don't pose any organizational risk
>>>to either the org nor the project participants
>>>serves us well in our other, often unexpressed
>>>but far more relevant, goals about encouraging
>>>committers to participate in active review of
>>>their project's commit activity.
>>>
>>>Just think about this for a second, what's more
>>>likely for people to start suing us over, some
>>>bug in the NOTICE file or an undetected backdoor
>>>in one of our programs?  I am personally far more
>>>concerned about the current state of the actual
>>>review going on in our podlings than I am about
>>>NOTICE minutia.
>>>
>>>Maybe we should compile some list of which committers
>>>are actually subscribed to their project's commit lists?
>>>It's crude but it may be useful data to look at to
>>>a first order.
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>


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