incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Incubator report sign-off
Date Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:59:58 GMT
Thanks Roman.


On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> One extra thing to note, that while we can *start* this comittee as
> > dedicated
> >>
> > to Incubating projects, it will be a very natural extension to get it
> > involved
> >>
> > in monitoring all of TLPs, not just pTLPs.
> >
> > What problem exists today where the Board needs
> > such a buffer?
>
> Nobody says it does. At least not long term. If the board
> feels like they can handle the load themselves -- there's
> no need for the side of the committee that acts that way.
> However, it feels like a safer bet to try and have it first
> and then see if the load is light enough so that the board
> can act directly 100%.
>
> Btw, board *does* act directly even today (case in point
> the thread started by Rich).
>
> > In what ways could this committee substitute its judgement for PMC of the
> > TLP?
>
> Just as the board's job is to tell PMC when something's going wrong
> ditto with the committee.
>
> > How would one apply to be on this committee? Would this be a case of some
> > members being more member than others?
>
> I see it same way as ComDev (or any other ground like that). There's
> a voting process, you get nominated and accepted. The only
> qualification is that you *have* to be an ASF member.
>
> > What would be the process and expectations for resolving disagreements
> > between the TLP and this committee?
>
> Again, since the comittee is just acting as a 'clerk' for the board, the
> process is still the same as what we have today between the board
> and the TLPs.
>
>

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