incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Russell <>
Subject Re: Allowed Champions on podlings
Date Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:57:47 GMT
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.


> 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
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

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

View raw message