www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Brooklyn not in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html
Date Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:47:05 GMT
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <adc@toolazydogs.com> wrote:

> > On Jan 20, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:57 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> >>> But committers added after the podling
> >>> entered incubator might, but need not be PPMC.
> >>
> >> That is news to me; I thought the idea was building community rather
> >> than acquiring developers  but I could be wrong.
> >
> > It's up to the community.  This is an old debate, and some people feel
> > very strongly one way or the other.  The Incubator accommodates both.
> This is why we need LDAP groups for PPMC members.  I’m glad we’re on the
> same page now.

> Can we all agree that we need to put this into LDAP?

I agree with you  that LDAP is the right place for such information, and I
do not see so many podlings fail that it should be a major concern. However
I think a discussion on general@i.a.o is needed.

If PPMC/committers maintenance of a podling is moved to LDAP, the mentors
and/or PPMC will no longer be able to maintain it them self. The script to
update LDAP is only available to officers (chairs) and infra, meaning we
move a task and the incubator chair needs to agree to that.

If incubator agrees on this approach then I assume David (v.p. infra) will
be relatively easy to convince.

jan i

> I’m happy to scrape this information together and, if given the privs,
> complete the work.
> Regards,
> Alan

Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message