Hi Ted,
but instead of questioning the Bylaws or introducing two classes of artifacts I
would rather try to improve mentor votes as this is something we can do
incubator internal.
And its always better to cure the cause then the symptoms : )
Julian
Am 12.08.19, 16:44 schrieb "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:20 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> ...
> This does NOT mean that the IPMC should be gatekeepers though... Just as
> PMC chairs are the "eyes and ears of the board", mentors are the "eyes and
> ears of the IPMC". The IPMC "vote" should be little more than a formality.
> IMO, if mentors are IPMC members, and there are at least 3 binding votes
on
> the podling list, and the mentors are acting as IPMC members when they
> vote, then any other additional vote in the IPMC is not required... in
> essence, consider it like extending the vote for a lazy consensus, so to
> speak:
>
>
> "The Apache Podling Foo has voted on releasing Foo 1.2.2 (url and
> pointers here). We have 3 (or more) binding votes from mentors. We are
> giving the IPMC and additional 72 hours to vote on said release."
>
This is good in theory, but as Justin has pointed out, 90% of podling
releases don't have enough mentor votes to follow this path.
The 10% that do have enough votes can easily follow this process.
