incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: Should Apache VOTEs be in a first-come, first-serve queue?
Date Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:45:49 GMT
Hi Marko,

Have you ever considered reviewing other podlings' incubating release
candidates and cast non-binding votes yourself?  If podling contributors like
you would all help each other by performing thorough inspections of each
others release candidates (and by learning enough to perform those thorough
inspections), it would make things easier for everyone!

I'm sure that some people reading this list are chortling with contempt at my
naivete.  ("Why not?  Because there's nothing in it for ME, dummy!")  But
helping out with other people's projects was part of what got me elected onto
the IPMC while Lucy (the main project I contribute to) was still incubating.
So then I was able to cast binding votes -- and our podling was largely
insulated from the problem that so vexes you now.

Participating in wider Apache activities is also its own reward.  The Apache
Software Foundation is a worthy institution contributing great value to the
world at large.  Helping out the Incubator, now or later, is both personally
enriching and more meaningful than what a lot of people get to do at their
software day jobs.

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Marko Rodriguez <okrammarko@gmail.com> wrote:

> For instance, Groovy received (out of my foggy memory) some 20+ VOTEs when
> only 3 were were needed and other project VOTEs were sitting around hoping
> for an Apache member to spend time on their project.

Groovy got 4 +1 votes and 2 -1 votes.  If you aren't reading these threads
closely, you should.  The Groovy release vote thread would have been extremely
educational -- contended votes are rare, and thread touched on not just legal
issues but the fundamental reasons behind release policy.

> Second, if no Apache member really cares about the project's VOTE,
> then the project committee is left "hoping" that someone will care ---
> pinging around to their mentors (no reply), to the list ("please")… like
> beggars in the street.

I sympathize.  This problem used to be WAY worse than it is now.  And we did
something about it, back in late 2013.

    http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases

    2013 Alternate Release Voting Process

    Select podlings pre-cleared by a majority vote of the IPMC MAY participate
    in an alternate release voting process:

    Should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the Podling SHALL
    hold a vote on the Podling's dev list and create a permanently archived
    Release Manifest as described in the Experimental Release Guide. At least
    three +1 votes from PPMC members are required (see the Apache Voting
    Process page). If the majority of PPMC 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. Formal approval
    requires three binding +1 votes and more positive than negative votes.
    Votes cast by members of the Incubator PMC are always binding. For all
    releases after the first, votes cast by members of the PPMC are binding if
    a Mentor approves the Release Manifest.

So it's actually possible to get by with a single Mentor vote, if the podling
contributors are willing to do some extra work.  Are you?

Ironically, that provision, which was so difficult to get consensus for, has
only been used once -- because these days we make better use of the limited
IPMC capacity for freelance (i.e. non-Mentor) votes.

But to drill down to the immediate issue... The specific TinkerPop VOTE thread
you're concerned about is here, right?

    http://s.apache.org/VPv

One thing that's confusing is that it mentions having 4 binding votes already.

    Result summary: +1 (4 binding, 2 non-binding), 0 (0), -1 (0)

I recommend supplying "IPMC", "PPMC", and "community" subtotals rather than
only the ambiguous "binding"/"non-binding".  It looks like the TinkerPop dev
list VOTE produced one Mentor/IPMC vote (Daniel Gruno's).  Writing that the
release candidate has "1 IPMC vote" communicates that 2 more are needed in a
way that "4 binding" does not.

Regardless, pinging general@incubator asking for IPMC votes usually works
these days and it will probably work for this specific TinkerPop release
candidate as well.  I see that you've already gotten one more IPMC vote today.

Marvin Humphrey

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


Mime
View raw message