incubator-lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] Thanks for voting!
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:02:53 GMT
FTR Marvin, the reason I didn't vote this time
round is because I read your own vote on the
candidate and was utterly perplexed by it, so
I was expecting to see another one come down
the pike.   Apologies.

> From: Marvin Humphrey <>
>Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 7:31 PM
>Subject: [lucy-dev] Thanks for voting!
>On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:10:06PM -0600, Peter Karman wrote:
>> Peter Karman did not vote.
>We should update the email template in so that the
>dev-list email includes a line like this...
>    Here's my +1.
>This assumes that the RM isn't trolling the community with a bogus release. ;)
>> The tally should have been:
>>   +1 Marvin Humphrey *+
>>   +1 Chris Mattman *+
>>   +1 Chris Hostetter *+
>>   +1 David E. Wheeler *
>>   +1 Nick Wellnhofer *
>>   +1 Logan Bell *
>Thanks to everyone who voted, and to Peter for serving as Release Manager!
>This VOTE took longer than most, and it's worth reviewing why that happened
>and what we can do to prevent such delays in the future.
>Quoting from a blog entry by Apache Board member Bernard Delacretaz:
>    A formal PMC vote is required to publish a release. By voting to accept
>    the release, the PMC makes the release an act of the foundation, as
>    opposed to a personal action of the the release manager. This is a very
>    important distinction should any legal issues arise.
>So, if e.g. somebody wants to sue over an ASF release, they can only go after
>the Apache Software Foundation itself -- not individual committers[1].  Of
>course legal complications are not commonplace, but Apache projects can be
>pretty high profile and stuff happens -- the now-retired Apache Harmony
>project, for instance, is tangled up in the Google/Oracle spat.
>IANAL, but if I understand correctly, the ASF's legal indemnification
>mechanism works something like this:
>  * The Members own the Foundation.
>  * The Board is elected by the Members to represent them.
>  * The Board, acting by voting to approve a Board resolution, establishes a
>    PMC and directs it to make software for the public good.
>  * The PMC is fulfilling the Board's directive when it VOTEs to accept a
>    release.
>At this time, though, Lucy doesn't have a PMC.  It has a PPMC -- "Podling
>Project Management Committee" which has not received a directive from the
>Board and thus does not have the authority to accept a release on behalf of
>the Foundation.
>The Incubator PMC, or IPMC, in contrast, is an official PMC.  In order to make
>a Lucy incubating release official, we need members of the IPMC to VOTE.  If
>we get a majority vote of IPMC members with a quorum of three +1s, our Lucy
>release becomes an act of the Incubator PMC and by extension an "act of the
>Lucy has four Mentors assigned to it, all of whom are members of the IMPC:
>    * Chris Hostetter
>    * Chris Mattmann
>    * Joe Schaefer
>    * Upayavira
>An Incubator podling's Mentors are normally expected to provide the binding
>IPMC votes which make its releases official.  However, any member of the IPMC
>can also cast a binding vote.  I joined the IPMC about a year ago, so that
>includes me.
>Doing the math... we were trying to get 3 IPMC votes out of a pool of 5
>people.  That didn't work so well this time.  I voted right away, but we
>haven't heard from Upayavira in a long time and our three other Mentors all
>just happened to be very busy.
>There's not much we can do about this while we're still in the Incubator and
>dependent on IPMC votes.  Once we graduate from the Incubator and persuade the
>Board to approve a resolution establishing the Lucy top-level project[2],
>though, our PPMC will become a PMC, and the votes of Apache Lucy PMC members
>will be binding.  Releasing still won't be instantaneous, but VOTEs will
>typically last 72 hours rather than 2+ weeks.
>We just have to remember this lesson on what happens when you have a small
>pool of potential votes to draw from.  An Apache PMC that falls below 3 people
>can't make a release at all.  An Apache PMC that is small or that has a large
>number of inactive members who don't vote may experience procedural problems
>and delays along the lines of what we just witnessed.
>Therefore, it's good to have a PMC of decent size (some IPMC members won't
>vote to graduate a PMC with fewer than five people on it) and for lots of
>people in the community to get in the habit of voting.
>Did I remember to thank the people who voted?  Hey, thanks for voting, y'all!
>Marvin Humphrey
>[1] More info on indemnification:
>[2] Board resolutions establishing top-level-projects:
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message