incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: my pTLP view
Date Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:04:19 GMT
Yes, and I briefly confused the two, and fessed up.

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is
> what we're talking about. Not the Strawman.
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Oh, my mistake! (smile) I confused pTLP with the "Strawman" proposal
> there
> > for a minute. In the pTLP proposal, there are no new-to-the-Foundation
> > project members on the pTLP PMC.
> >
> > "All proposals for new ASF projects must include an initial PMC chair and
> > an initial set of PMC members. These people must be acceptable to the
> > board. It is the responsibility of the Incubator Committee to vett these
> > people. All of them must have experience on existing PMCs"
> >
> >
> > Newcomers to Apache *might* get committership depending how the
> > only-members-as-PMC decide. They don't get even non-binding
> stakeholdership
> > in decisionmaking on new commiters, releases, and so on.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP.
> > >
> > > Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal
> > > ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals,
> > > then the decision is reviewed as a whole. But this is not how things
> > > would work in a pTLP, right? Individuals there would effectively cast
> > > votes +1 (binding), or -1 (binding), +1 (non-binding), or -1
> > > (non-binding), etc., depending if they are a Member or not. Maybe in
> > > practice the pTLP PMC wouldn't write down their votes like that, but
> > > somehow the distinction must be presented in the tallies to be
> > meaningful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Branko Čibej <brane@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 25.01.2015 19:51, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > >> >> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems
> > with
> > >> > ​> ​
> > >> > a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the impression
> > >> > ​> ​
> > >> > that the PPMC can make binding decisions.
> > >> >
> > >> > ​Close. The PPMC membership feels they have made a decision that
> > matters
> > >> > with equal input.
> > >> > Certainly on PPMCs I've been on,
> > >> > ​there is awareness that everything is
> > >> > provisional
> > >> > ​. Still, a
> > >> >  process takes place on PPMC mailing lists leading to a tallied
> > outcome.
> > >> > The input that leads to this output is the consensus or voting of
*a
> > >> group
> > >> > of equal peers*.
> > >> > ​ This output is handed to the IPMC in aggregate. ​
> > >> > When casting votes on the PPMC lists there are no +1 (binding) or
+1
> > >> > (non-binding) distinctions made. PPMC sends the outcome over to the
> > IPMC
> > >> > feeling some level of ownership having just participated in a
> decision
> > >> > making process as equal
> > >> > ​s​
> > >> > . (Or at least so I think, in some perhaps quaint notion.) Of course
> > in
> > >> > IPMC voting it is different, but the IPMC is where supervision
> > happens,
> > >> or
> > >> > doesn't, as some argue.
> > >>
> > >> This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. Any committer can
> > >> propose a release. The PMC must (!) start a (public) vote. Anyone can
> > >> vote, with PMC votes being binding. /Any/ -1 vote, either from PMC
> > >> member or plain committer, should block the release and trigger a
> > >> discussion to find a solution; and in this discussion (which purpose
> is
> > >> to reach consensus on a solution), PMC members have no more voice than
> > >> any other community member.
> > >>
> > >> If the PMC decides to ignore a -1 on a release vote, they'd better
> have
> > >> really good reasons for that, or I'd expect the Board to come down
> like
> > >> a ton of bricks on that PMC.
> > >>
> > >> The situation is slightly different with new committer/PMC member
> > >> nominations and votes, which are private; you have a point there.
> > >>
> > >> -- Brane
> > >>
> > >> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Branko Čibej <brane@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On 25.01.2015 19:16, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > >> >>> With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make votes we call binding
on
> > >> matters
> > >> >> of
> > >> >>> their own project.
> > >> >> As other people have said, PPMC members (that are not also IPMC
> > >> members)
> > >> >> do not have binding votes, neither for releases nor for inviting
> new
> > >> >> committers/PPMC members. The "binding" bit lies with the IPMC,
> which
> > >> can
> > >> >> revoke any formal decision made by the PPMC.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems
> > with
> > >> >> a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the
> impression
> > >> >> that the PPMC can make binding decisions. In this respect, there's
> no
> > >> >> practical difference between the current IPMC model and the
> proposed
> > >> >> pTLP model.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Of course, when it comes to /technical/ decisions, there's no
such
> > >> thing
> > >> >> as a vote, so the term "binding" does not apply. Consensus, of
one
> > form
> > >> >> or another, always rules: and the IPMC or mentors can't meddle
in
> > this
> > >> >> case.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -- Brane
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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