oodt-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 05:27:01 GMT
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> So basically you are moving more towards Joe's proposal, that the PPMC would
> have the binding VOTEs in e.g., new committers/PMC members, and on releases?
> Of course, with the caveats below, as you mention, i.e., the observers can
> "observe" and step in where necessary, but ultimately, they're there to
> ensure things are going great, and not to get in the way, unless they
> aren't? +1 to that.

Yes, I know Joe was looking to only try something small and
incremental.  Given its history, a small incremental change in process
is probably right for Thrift, but perhaps we can use OODT as an
experiment for something even more bonkers.  I don't see how we have
much to lose - we've already been taken out to the woodshed once by
the Incubator PMC.  =)

> +1. So our OODT "observers" would be:
> You, Jean Frederic, Ross, Ian, and me?
> PPMC stays the same, but they are given:
> * binding release/committer VOTEs

Yes, I think so.

Perhaps to satisfy the governance rules, the "observers" (in the eyes
of the Board, the PMC for the TLP) "certify" the votes from the PPMC
(in the eyes of the PMC, the real ones).  So, maybe it's not directly
a binding vote, but the expectation is that the "observers" are meant
to only "certify" and *not* provide technical oversight - unless they
are *also* part of that PPMC.

> In this case, observers are just really the mentors, and we move towards the
> mentors ensuring all is going well (which they should do now anyways), but
> IPMC "ratification" isn't required, and PPMC gets to self-govern. +1 from me
> on that, I think that's the right thing to teach, and with mentors that pay
> attention, I think we'll be great.


>> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
>> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
>> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
>> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
> If my interpretation above is correct, big +1 from me.

I think we could perhaps make something workable from this.  Dunno.
Need to see who else chimes in...hey, a message from Greg.  =)  --

View raw message