incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: my pTLP view
Date Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:03:01 GMT
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)
>

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