On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:40:59AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote: > > On May 8, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:00:14AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote: > >>> > >>> On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Eric Johnson <e...@tibco.com> wrote: > >>>> One last suggested refinement: > >>>> > >>>> At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the > >>>> third is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such > >>>> as one of the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point > >>>> that has come out of the discussion has been a lack of clear > >>>> responsibility. Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two > >>>> allows one as backup for the other. > >>> > >>> Yes, this was what I was thinking as well. Two active mentors, maybe one > >>> or two inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves > >>> inactive the active mentor know not to assume anything of them. > >> > >> I may be incorrect in my understanding of the official ASF policy here > >> [1], but WRT a release, doesn't it require at least 3 +1 votes of the > >> appropriate PMC (in the case of podlings, the IPMC)? If the mentors > >> were limited to 2 within the podlings, then would that leave all podling > >> in a position of having to get a third +1 from the IPMC? > > > > We're the IPMC, we can change the rules if we need to. > > Oh, I see this is an ASF rule. Maybe we should have three active mentors?
That was exactly my point, yes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
