incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Release vote thresholds
Date Sat, 23 Nov 2013 00:20:32 GMT

On Nov 22, 2013, at 1:09 AM, ant elder wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Marvin Humphrey <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:33 AM, ant elder <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Marvin Humphrey <>wrote:
>>> I think this is getting too hung up on vetting releases is the be all and
>>> end all of PMC membership when really there are other just as if not more
>>> important things.
>> Let's say we strike that bullet point from the proposal.  It seems like we're
>> making good progress, because that moves us closer to *both* you and Dave
>> Fisher.  The remaining question is whether we can arrive at an agreement in
>> terms of how many IPMC votes it takes to get a release approved.
>> Ant, you proposed a minimum of one IPMC vote for each release:
>>    How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that they
>>    don't require at least three binding votes, but instead make it at least
>>    three votes only one of which must be binding. That would mean there would
>>    still be the element of oversight that a mentor vote gives but avoids all
>>    the problems with not having three mentors.
>> Dave responded with this critique:
>>    I don't think this is prudent, having only one binding vote is too low a
>>    check. We at the ASF have a responsibility to the public.  I want to be
>>    certain that no one steam rolls the process. Just the fact that there are
>>    edge cases means we need to be careful.
>> This formulation was conceived to address both of your concerns:
>>    *   PPMC votes are binding for every release except the first.
>>    *   One IPMC vote is required for each release after the first.
>> Ant, can you accept the elevated requirement for the first vote?  If we only
>> have to muster that many IPMC members once per podling, I think it's much more
>> doable.
> Sure, its a step in the right direction. I do think we could still do
> more but that would be a good start.

I am not sure that this is a step in the correct direction.


>   ...ant
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message