On Jun 19, 2007, at 1:37 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:All very good suggestions. ant elder wrote: > > How about changing it so; >> (1) incubator-private is notified that discussion of a new committer is > starting on the poddling's private list so IPMCers can participate in that> discussion;
I think it is difficult for IPMC members to participate in the discussion, since in general the only IPMC members who are subscribed to the PPMC list are Mentors. And for IPMC members who are not Apache Members, it's impossible.
I might be confused; maybe someone can explain how the IPMC participates in the discussion on a different private list.
>> (2) when the actual vote happens the incubator is notified again so they can > participate on the poddlings mailing list (ie not voting / discussing on > incubator-private where the poddling PPMC can't see whats going on);
See (1).
>> (3) the IPMC peoples votes are done by lazy consensus so as long as there > are enough poddling PPMC votes the vote passes whether or not there are 3> binding IPMC votes
This contradicts common practice for there to be 3 affirmative votes for new committers by the governing PMC (in this case, the IPMC). The PPMC has no legal standing, and the act of voting a new committer is one of the most important safeguards in the Apache governance policy.
Craig
>> (4) the same (1) (2) (3) for a new PPMC member (maybe (3) should be dropped> for a new PPMC member?)All around +1 - this is a really sane way to handle things. Pre- notifying [EMAIL PROTECTED] gives them their chance to raise issues while the voteis still going on, and 3 will usually be nothing but an ack.sounds very reasonable to me as well - robert
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!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
