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 deepalk@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.46 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <51C0E788.3040108@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:04:40 -0400
From: Deepal jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial
 committer?
References: 
 <CAKyVFMHcmss9yqO=ycA-6Ug7+9o0q=VZHGV5TfeQct2n+ZS0LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAS6=7hXkf6a+y+xOE+okjb-R_3xR5TgQp2K_RebZoh+TreRnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKQbXgB=brq88a-T1ywEydr4TK-9pDUqWo5eakkcq4oSi1+dhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAS6=7jbgfGMJgKY8wjCodP2X7wKQE-LGfsjSwDuMLa7yZGxaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKQbXgB+5EN0aiiA7WAOa8sHak8bvBbwMp9B9P1MW0UqQ4c-7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG_bHowP=6+emqtX1GBn2FcVx4YfezAYY1f1TmDqZnzQubd9=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKQbXgAWogb4W6LJt6Koe6-i7cB=m=x2dERXx8S=0xQYmgM1Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130618161207.GA87427@minotaur.apache.org>
 <CAKQbXgCwryjLY=mnY-7v8S-YK2AoP9piKopNpcccR89eKn5iBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgCwryjLY=mnY-7v8S-YK2AoP9piKopNpcccR89eKn5iBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------070908050607080203000300"

--------------070908050607080203000300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The Apache way is *"community over code"*, as a healthy community we
should encourage community growth. IMO I do not consider adding a new
member to the initial committer list as a big change to the proposal.  
In fact, now I believe if we had a separate VOTE for him, we will not
have this much traffic in this thread.

Deepal
> It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
> on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
>
> I note that this change is different to the trademark promise made
> earlier since that one had been agreed in the discuss thread. That
> change was merely bringing the proposal into line with the discussion.
> This change was discussed after the vote had been called, which is
> quite different.
>
> I can also understand the concern that there is a potential for a
> "slippery slope" here (although I will note this is not the first time
> proposals have been tweaked during a vote - which should just be a
> formality since consensus is gauged through discussion).
>
> I am disappointed that following (what appears to be) unwritten rules
> to the letter rather than in the spirit of community development is
> more important to the IPMC members who have spoken, but I have to
> accept the majority opinion.
>
> I consider my wrists well and truly slapped and appreciate that nobody
> has gone so far as to veto the vote.
>
> I trust someone who believes this is a fixed rule rather than a
> social-norm by which we are guided will now go and document it
> appropriately in [2] (see ISSUE 09 [1]).
>
> (I keep wanting to delete that last sentence as it feels like a
> parting shot - it's not meant that way, it is an important point.
> I don't agree with this new rule, but I do appear to be in the minority. In
> an attempt to prove it's not a parting shot I've make the change
> myself in r866129:
>
> Index: content/incubation/Process_Description.html
> ===================================================================
> --- content/incubation/Process_Description.html
> (.../production/incubator)  (revision 866128)
> +++ content/incubation/Process_Description.html
> (.../staging/incubator/trunk)   (revision 866128)
> @@ -231,6 +231,8 @@
>  getting feedback about what is actually happening. The Sponsor will
>  typically take about 7-10 days before announcing a vote result.
>  </p>
> +<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
> +          No further changes are accepted.</p>
>  <p>If that vote is affirmative, the Sponsor (unless the Sponsor is
>            already the Incubator PMC) will propose to the
>
> )
>
> Ross
>
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013#Issue_09_-_People_do_not_follow_through_to_improve_Incubator_documentation
> [2] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html
>
> On 18 June 2013 17:12, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> However, in this specific case the social norm *should* be to allow the
>>> change to proceed - that's the most efficient process.
>> Modifying a vote that has started is a slippery slope.  (The same is true for
>> reusing version numbers: ANY change to something that has been tagged must get
>> a new version number - no matter how small the change may be.)  One solution is
>> to restart the vote.  Another is to run a parallel vote for the delta/amendment.
>>
>> Concretely, can't you just start a thread on private@ saying "The would-be-PPMC
>> has consensus on inviting X as a committer"?  This would allow you to invite X
>> to be a committer shortly after the original vote ends.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>


--------------070908050607080203000300--