Thorsten Scherler wrote:
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.
ok, I agree that the PI can change the status unilateraly. This is
covered by the bylaws as Thorsten points out below.
The vote comes in when the PMC wants to take some action, of course.
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!
Agreed, that in this case it makes no real sense since there was already
consensus about the move.
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?
It doesn't make sense. I was wrong suggesting that a vote is a must, but
a vote doesn't hurt after all. I'm still in the process of
understanding how this lab thing works.
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.
Some comments on this:
I agree that going dormant should not require a vote, when initiated by
the PI.
Many labs are dormant without being declared dormant. This leaves it to
the PMC to take care for them. It would be nice of PIs to at least keep
the status uptodate but this is probably only a hope and unrealistic.
Most PIs do not _actively_ chose to not work on their lab.
If we don't need a vote for changing an existing lab's status by the PI,
what is your and others opinion about the lab establishment process? Do
you think this is hybris, too?
As for the notification, I figured
the commit message would be clear enough.
With my PMC chair hat on, I'd like to see at least a simple notification
email beyond a commit log. This would make it much easier for me to spot
all status changes I'd like to report to the board. It would facilitate
oversight. I'd guess hardly anyone noticed juuso going dormant beyond
you and me (but I can be wrong with this, too :-)
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)
ah, thanks, good spot.
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".
We have to clarify this. For example, changing the PI only requires a
notification, no vote (AFAIR, I'm writing this when offline).
So, my take is:
+ Lab establishment: VOTE
+ Lab status change by PI: Notification email
+ Lab status change by PMC + PI: VOTE
+ Lab PI change by former PI: notification email
+ Lab PI change by PMC: VOTE
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.
+1
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.
Great, thanks!
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
