On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:27 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > Currently mentors need to be IPMC members. Is that really necessary? >
Yes and no. :-) If mentors are going to vote on *official releases* (and we skip the extra layer of IPMC voting), then (3) mentors must be on the IPMC to make the vote/release an act of the Foundation. Now, note the caveats: * maybe a podling releases some code, but it isn't an "official ASF release", and (thus) can skip past the Foundation's release policies/guidelines. mentors would not have to be on the IPMC since we don't need the chain of responsibility. * maybe the mentors are not on the IPMC, so when the podling puts together an official release candidates, then the IPMC votes to make it official. again, mentors don't have to be on the IPMC. But if you want a podling to straight up make an official ASF release, and you want a single vote (rather than the two layers we've been doing), then the Mentors should probably be on the IPMC. Alternatively mentors could be given all required powers through the PPMC > membership Acts of the Foundation require specific oversight of the IPMC. To establish that "act", we have the (3) +1 vote rule of IPMC members. The IPMC cannot delegate this power further, as each IPMC member is specifically empowered by the Board. So PPMC members cannot act for the Foundation since they haven't been empowered by the Board. Again, the above is premised on *needing* that particular empowerment. If podling releases are no longer required to be official, then quite a bit can be changed. >... > Mentors that are active over a long time and show interest in the overall > direction of the incubator, could become IPMC candidates. That would be > similar to how TLPs consider PMC membership. > Yup, that's how it operates today, with a special case for ASF Members on the assumption that the Member already have merit and know what they're doing. That assumption could be removed, and the IPMC could switch to a pure-merit model. Cheers, -g
