On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Hi Ross, > > On Feb 4, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. >> On Feb 4, 2012 3:41 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" < >> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>> [...snip...] >>>> Who fixes it? >>> >>> The project's PMC. And if not, the project's VP. And if not that, the >> board, >>> or the membership. Just like the current way it works for existing TLPs. >> >> if l the "membership" what is the channel used and who is responsible for >> ensuring that channel works? > > The same channel that exists today for normal projects. The board is > elected by the membership. If the board doesn't fix the problem for the > project, and the membership is unpleased, the members elect a new > board that will fix it. Or they won't. > >> >>> >>>> Who is maintaining the standards with respect to IP >>>> management? >>> >>> How much work is there maintaing them? What's left to do? >> >> I mean in individual projects, not in defining policy. Even in the poddling >> that I've felt would benefit from this proposal the RM has learned by his >> mistakes. Some of which were caught by IPMC review when an additional vote >> was needed. > > Sure, and in my proposal it'll be caught by review of having 3 ASF members > on the project; by actually signing up strong ASF members (or "mentors") > to the project (as Benson said) who care about that stuff (release review, > etc.), and by having > a VP for the project. Or by the board. Or by the legal committee. > > If you think about it, I'm simply proposing to use what's there, and to > move more towards the existing foundation resources, than to pretend > that the IPMC was the only place that we could get this information from. > A lot of the passionate legal folks or release review folks in the IPMC > (ant, Sam, etc.) are also members of the legal committee, and/or lurk > there. A lot of the release passionate folks (Joe S., myself etc.) also lurk > in other > places that will see releases happening (infra@, etc.). It's not putting extra > burden on them to ask them to flag what they see, or provide advice. They're > doing that already. >
One thing that is not clear on the proposal is that it says that releases will be responsibility of the TLPs, but it doest not suggest or require that the actual existing ASF members that are part of the TLP have to vote on the release. This might become an issue with podlings that are not so experienced with the IP issues, etc and official ASF releases from these podlings might have issues. I'd recommend that, during the incubation period of the TLP, releases are required to have at least 3 votes from existing ASF members. This might still be a little overhead, but at least it's members of the PMC, and the TLP would not have to go chase IPMC on the general list to get release approval. >> Who provides these cross-checks? > > See above. > >> >> You asked if a project couldn't muster the binding votes on a release, >> what's it doing on the incubator. This project couldn't, but it is still >> graduating. Ironically when I suggested bringing the RM into the IPMC to >> help other podlings trying to find votes Bill, who supports this proposal >> said yes, but required that the RM must refrain from voting on his own >> releases. That position seems to conflict with this proposal and I'm >> unclear what the difference is. > > I can't speak for Bill, but I can say that Bill "gets" what I am saying > (and so do quite a few others). Bill is just keeping up with the threads > right now, and doing a great job. > > You'll note I supported giving your RM his VOTE, and in my proposal > you wouldn't have had problems mustering any binding VOTEs. You'd > have had them already like any other project management committee. > >> >>> >>> Arguably, legal and the Legal Committee have a hand in this, no? >>> I'm not sure it was entirely managed by the IPMC before. >> >> Again, I agree the IPMC has not always worked, but it has not always failed >> either. > > Stop calling it a failure. I *never* called it a failure. I called it a > success. > Even things that are a "success" end. > >> >> Are legal@ going to do reviews when necessary? If not who is? > > Of course they are. They do it now for existing projects, that come > to them and ask (Sam's famous phrase). And even before that, the ASF members > who > are on the project committee (and even the non members) need > to do a bit of reading, and try and help out there as much as possible. > Signing up to be a PMC member on an incoming project means > investing the time to help out in some way. The member doesn't have to be all > knowing or be the super star champion. That's why the trust is > distributed amongst the members of the PMC just like any PMC, > is funneled through the chair of the committee, and is acted or > reacted upon by the board, and why the board is elected by > the membership. > > Cheers, > Chris > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
