On Wednesday 30 May 2007 20:59, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > I like the second option. thanks for bringing this up.
I don't. It assumes that the [Discuss] thread was all dandy. If not, then the vote passes in public and the Incubator PMC will become the 'bad guys who doesn't let X in'. Looking at ASF at large, one of the more common ways of committer voting is; 1. [Discuss] on private@ 2. [Vote] on private@ 3. [Vote] in [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about teaching that is the process, we inject one extra step for podlings for legal reasons (if they now exist)? 1. [Discuss] on [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. [Vote] on [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. [Vote] on [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. [Vote] in [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMHO, IPMC members only need to browse the Discuss & Vote threads a couple of minutes to give the heads-up. And if the mentors don't cry "No" this should be a swift exercise. Cheers Niclas > On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by > > the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a > > TLP is best practice for the incubator. > > > > The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC > > members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to > > get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers. > > > > But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC > > processes and voting based on the PPMC vote process. > > > > Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a > > new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC > > discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer. > > On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list > > that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd > > have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job. > > > > So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau > > for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the > > PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator > > PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC. > > [Only the final vote is binding.] > > > > Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC > > private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a formal > > [VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and > > vote of the community. > > > > This way, the incubator PMC can see that the PPMC "gets" the Apache Way. > > > > Craig > > > > On May 30, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Craig L Russell wrote: > > > Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times, > > > I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the > > > distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers. > > > > > > The new text says > > > > > > Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote > > > is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a > > > committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an > > > Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the > > > documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the > > > Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root. > > > > > > I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to > > > reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC. > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > >> Yoav Shapira wrote: > > >>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's > > >>> contributions. > > >> > > >> +1 != +0 > > >> > > >>> I always thought (and the documentation at > > >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are > > >>> binding. > > >> > > >> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that > > >> elsewhere it > > >> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were > > >> PMC to > > >> which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC. > > >> There is > > >> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC. > > >> > > >> I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a > > >> recognized > > >> entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only > > >> PMC votes > > >> count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can > > >> other > > >> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes > > >> are binding. > > >> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works. > > >> > > >> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta > > >> Committer who > > >> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For > > >> years > > >> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta > > >> is the > > >> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that > > >> didn't go > > >> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator. > > >> > > >>> the documentation link above is out of date. > > >> > > >> It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date. > > >> > > >> --- Noel > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Craig Russell > > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo > > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > > Craig Russell > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
