incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jakob Homan <>
Subject Re: Allowed Champions on podlings
Date Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:24:46 GMT
So, it's been a week with no objections.  Craig's concern could also
be addressed by allowing Officers to join the IPMC in the same way
that Members can.

 I'd like to see this question resolved so that we progress the
Airflow proposal to a vote with Chris Riccomini as Champion (VP of
Samza).  He'd do an awesome job as champion and we'd like to get
started with the vote.


On 21 March 2016 at 09:57, Craig Russell <> wrote:
> There is a sorta technical reason for the Champion to be a member of the PMC of the sponsor.
> I’d expect the Champion to subscribe to the private@ list and to have binding votes
on podling releases. These both require PMC membership.
> The alternative is to create two different “exceptions” that would allow Champions
to subscribe to private@ and to have binding release votes.
> Craig
>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Williams <> wrote:
>>> Without judging the goodness of it... I'd just point out that
>>> currently in the non-Member Officer case, they must be a member of the
>>> Sponsoring PMC.  I thought that was true of Members as well, btw, but
>>> thought I'd point out that it's not simply Members and Officers.
>> Thanks for bringing that up, Tim.
>> In my view, this rule is too complicated, and therefore I support John's
>> initiative to allow Champions to be any ASF Member or Officer.  Here is a
>> patch implementing his proposal:
>> The primary utility of requiring the Champion to have certain qualifications
>> is to ensure that projects contemplating incubation get good guidance, so that
>> they either produce a sound proposal or make an informed decision not to
>> incubate. (I've seen both happen, as have others who have served as a
>> Champion.)
>> But by the time a full-blown proposal lands on general@incubator, it's too
>> late to go back and change the guidance that the candidate project received.
>> Thus, when this rule is misunderstood, the only effect is that we end up in a
>> distracting debate about whether to replace a Champion whose most important
>> work is already done.  This does not help the prospective podling, nor does it
>> inoculate future prospective podlings against receiving poor guidance from an
>> unqualified Champion.
>> These days, the Sponsor is nearly always the Incubator, anyway.  I don't think
>> the IPMC objects to having Officers who are neither ASF Members nor IPMC
>> members serve as Champion for proposals where the Incubator is the Sponsor.
>> In the unlikely event that there is a podling proposal where the Sponsor is
>> not the Incubator AND the Champion is neither an ASF Member nor a member of
>> the Sponsoring PMC AND the Sponsoring PMC objects... we can cross that bridge
>> when we come to it.
>> In the meantime, I don't think the present rule offers enough value to justify
>> its complexity.
>> Marvin Humphrey
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> Craig L Russell
> Architect
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message