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 19:56:38 GMT
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)

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