On 7/2/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:10 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
> Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The thread has died down with no consensus, so I'm going to try
>> again.
>
> I apologize for being absent from these threads for the last month.
> Life got busy and one of the things that got dropped was the incubator
> general list.
>
> I don't want to rehash everything that's been discussed before, but
> here's my opinions as an IPMC member:
>
> I'd prefer that the decision making stays close to the PPMC. If we
> need the IPMC to check off on PPMC decisions, fine. That should be
> possible via the mentors. But let's not make this any more
> bureaucratic than necessary.
I agree that the Incubator should groom the PPMC toward self-
governance. But that doesn't mean that the Incubator PMC can avoid
its responsibilities.
i too would prefer a solution where the decision stays closer to the
PPMC but i think that some process is needed. seems best to accept
this reasonable solution now and look for improvements later.
> Thus I'm in favor of only ONE vote.
That's why I proposed that a vote occur simultaneously on both
private lists.
>
> Furthermore, I'm not completely convinced by Noel's argument that the
> PPMC is a figment of our imagination. Sorry, Noel, don't mean to pick
> on you here. :-)
I can't claim to have read every document that pertains to this
issue, but as far as the Board is concerned, PPMC's don't exist. They
are a construction of the Incubator in accordance with the
Incubator's charter to provide guidance to subprojects.
According to Apache Foundation how-it-works [1] which I'm assuming is
normative, PMC members have the right to propose new committers. And
the PMC as a whole is responsible for project governance, which
includes new committers.
IMO PPMCs are not part of the organisational structure of apache but
never are they figments of our collective imagination. PMC approval is
required for new committers (anyone can propose new committers).
> My point is, if the IPMC choses to delegate committer voting
> responsibilities to PPMCs, then the PPMC votes are just as 'binding'
> as IPMC votes. AFAIK, there's no legal barrier for this to happen,
> only procedural ones.
The discussion here is on the process (procedure) to create new
committers in the incubator while staying within the Incubator's
charter within the Foundation's bylaws. Which means to me that the
Incubator PMC must decide (vote) on new committers. I'm not convinced
yet that the Incubator PMC can decide to let another group (PPMC)
decide without voting to accept the other group's decision. I guess
that's a bit of a legal question.
IMHO it's an organisational one (rather than a legal one)
but i agree that it seems active PPMC approval is needed
If we can pop the stack a few frames, the reason I'm pursuing this is
that I've seen several examples over the past few months where PPMC
votes were taken without the Mentors voting, the PPMC tried to get
the new committer on board, root ignored the request, and a general
melee occurred. Also from personal experience, a new project has no
idea how to get a new committer on board. There seem to be as many
opinions (conflicting) as Incubator PMC members.
different projects have very different ideas about how much of a
hurdle committership should be. there is active disagreement amongst
the membership on this issue. this means that electing committers is
going to be hard for the IPMC.
IMHO this isn't the best forum for this debate. the incubator needs a
process and craig's proposal is reasonable and is likely to be as
close to consensus as we're likely to get.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
