Here's an idea... The IPMC focuses on supporting mentors to do their job rather 
than forcing project developers and their mentors to jump through arbitrarily 
defined hoops.

That means stay out of the way until the mentor asks for a graduation vote. The 
IPMC doesn't need to enforce policy of any kind, except at the point of 
graduation. Policy is set and enforced by VP Legal, infra marketing, trademarks 
etc. The mentor can work directly with them as necessary.

I know holding mentors accountable is a tough job in itself, but if we quit 
accepting vanity mentors and instead focus on supporting mentors who have a 
personal interest in the success of the podling it shouldn't be too hard.

When things change for individuals and they can no longer be good mentors then 
the IPMC  needs to make it a priority to help find a new, truly dedicated 
mentor. It's a problem that needs to be solved, but let's worry about that when 
it's actually a problem rather than a hypothetical one.



Sent from my phone, you know what that means - sorry

From: Justin Mclean <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 3:04:46 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)


> I am for option (F) with the addition of Myrle’s [REVIEW] until such time as 
> the podling is fully compliant with Apache Release Policy and goes through 
> the usual process. Abiding by the Apache Release Policy would remain a 
> Graduation Requirement.

I’ll note not a single podling has asked for a [REVIEW].

> So, we treat these releases as not fully approved the same way we treat 
> Binary Conveniences.

They are not the same as binary conveniences, as they are derived from a voted 
on approved release. Thinking about (F) if they are not official releases could 
a podling:
a) Call them Apache releases? (Not doing may have a number of implications 
including naming of artefacts, package names and the like),
b) Place tham on a download page on their ASF provided website? If so what 
would be required to make it clear they are not approved releases?

We might want to check with branding and legal and get their input on this.

My concerns are that:
a) As IPMC votes are not required, less IPMC people (including mentors) look at 
the releases or are less thorough in doing so, and things slip through
b) This become a hard gate at the worse time i.e. graduation. What happens if a 
community proposed graduation and it found it’s releases have serious issue?

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to