On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 21:13 +0200, Jukka Zitting wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jukka Zitting wrote: > >> PS. Do we really need votes for lab state changes? I would be fine > >> with just a notification from the PI. > > > > The vote happens according to the bylaws. I would be fine with a > > notification for a project going dormant, but for promotion to Incubator, I > > am not so sure. > > A vote is only meaningful if there are more than one reasonable > outcomes. What would it mean for us to -1 a move to the Incubator? It > would be like: You want to go there and the IPMC is fine with that, > but hey, we like you so much that we won't let you go!
I must admit that I neither understand the vote going to incubation here on labs. I followed the bylaws and called a vote but as Jukka points out the why is not very clear to me. The incubator already accepted the project why does the labs PMC has to accept the promotion? I guess this bylaw makes sense for a "normal" TLP project. I can remember a case in forrest. We had some code that some guys from maven offered to maintain. Since it was not critical for us we happily accepted their offer and gave the code to them. We voted on the decision to give it away to make it official. The whole thing on lab is, that it is NOT a "normal" apache TLP. It follows the principals but the major difference I see is that a labs project hardly has more then one committer. Meaning there is no usual community around the code and the tlp pmc of labs do not have any special interest into keeping the code. > > > I only remember one status change, for a project going dormant - AFAIR there > > never was a notification. Maybe the responsible PI just forgot about (who > > was that again ;_)) , and everybody else, too. > > Guilty as charged. ;-) > > To be honest, the idea of calling a vote for PMC approval to *not* > work on a hobby project of mine sounds so absurd that I didn't even > think that it could be required. As for the notification, I figured > the commit message would be clear enough. Actually the bylaws suggest what Jukka did is perfectly alright: "The lab PI can change the state of the lab from active to idle and back at any time, just by updating the descriptor." (Section Idle) Meaning the PI can decide to pause the project but not to promote it. Certainly the prior paragraph can be interpreted differently: "The Labs PMC can change the state of a lab with a majority vote. In any vote when a lab state is changed, and in such votes only, the lab's PI's vote will be counted along with the PMC members' to form majority. Can be interpreted as "has to" or (as I see and read it) "can". Putting it in other words: living with your parents you can decide when you move out or your parents can decide for you (kicking you out). In conclusion, IMO a simple announcement to this list that the incubator has accepted the project and that the status will be changed to "promoted", would have been sufficient. As with the other thread as soon droids it promoted we need to review the process/bylaws to adopt them with the lessons learned. Maybe somebody can find the time to summary the other thread, if no-one beats me to it I will do it as soon droids is officially in the incubator. salu2 -- Thorsten Scherler thorsten.at.apache.org Open Source Java consulting, training and solutions --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
