incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <Ross.Gard...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:56:06 GMT
Well this explains how it got this way, it was poorly worded from the start...

The first part is about incoming code (the SGA) and nothing has changed there. 

The second part says " SHALL formally request the Incubator PMC approve such a release" It
does not say [VOTE] and it was never, IMHO, intended to be a separate vote (unless there were
insufficient IPMC votes). 

Speaking personally I have always (and I know many other mentors have also, certainly all
those that have co-mentored with me) treated a vote on the podling list as binding and a "request"
in the form of a notification (giving time to object if appropriate) when three positive IPMC
votes have been cast.

In 2006 it said "Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the Podling
SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list. At least three +1 votes are required
(see the Apache Voting Process page), and only the PPMC member votes are binding. If the majority
of all votes is positive, then the Podling SHALL send a summary of that vote to the Incubator's
general list and formally request the Incubator PMC approve such a release."

That's still the wording today.

I've never been challenged on this approach (having mentored many podlings). It was my approach
with the most recent release I was a part of, just last week (Ripple). The additional reviews
received from the IPMC were useful, spotting a couple of small items, and turned up the one
required +1 (only two binding mentor votes).

Whether this is an accurate recollection of what was discussed way back, or whether this is
just a practice I (and others) have fallen into and not been challenged on I urge the IPMC
to consider this approach (of course, it does rely on proper oversight from mentors and the
IPMC, I'm comfortable with this approach because I never vote +1 without having done due diligence
on the release - I trust others do the same).

 
Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:05 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The proposed need to announce release votes on the IPMC list is how things were when
the incubator was created. The need for IPMC to control the process is another case of the
IPMC over-reaching itself and in so doing causing problems by creating a bottleneck in the
process.
>
> It used to be that it was only required to *notify* the IPMC of a release vote underway.
Thereby giving interested IPMC members the opportunity to review artifacts and processes during
the normal release cycle. IPMC members were expected to cast their votes on the PPMC list
where such things belong.
>

I'd love to see links to that - my digging didn't find it. (see below)

> I'm not sure where this idea that the vote actually occurs on the IPMC list came from
but it's flat wrong in my opinion (someone may dig through the archives and find a good reason
it was changed, but my feeling is that it changed gradually through edits-on-edits-on-edits
of the incubation policy).
>
> The fact is that the PPMC (with IPMC representation from the mentors) should be in charge
of their releases, and pretty much everything else. The IPMC role is one of teaching the PPMC
how manage itself. Mentors should do this through mentoring and the IPMC should ensure it
is done through an appropriate level of oversight (not an inappropriate amount of control).
>
> Consider this... The board does not bring TLP release votes to board@, why on earth must
the IPMC do so?
>
> I've half a mind to got back the wayback machine and pull the original 
> incubator polices and propose them as the "new" policies (yes, some 
> changes have been good, but it seems to me that many have not)
>

So I couldn't find anything in 2003, but 2004 has this page[1] which included the text:

"Podlings in Incubation SHALL NOT perform any releases of software without the explicit approval
of the Incubator PMC. Such approval SHALL be given only after the Incubator PMC has followed
the process detailed in (Reference to Charter), and SHALL NOT occur until all source has been
legally transferred to the ASF."

and

"Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the Podling SHALL formally
request the Incubator PMC approve such a release. The request SHALL have the endorsement of
the Mentor."

So it seems that this has been with us for a long while.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20041010183702/http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases%0A

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Mime
View raw message