On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Niall Pemberton > <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Niall Pemberton >>> <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: > >>> I believe we've said in order for a component to be promoted we are >>> looking for some expression of "commitment" (in quotes for obvious >>> reasons) from folks to mitigate the risk of thrown over the wall and >>> quickly orphaned components. I also believe we've had folks voting >>> differently (while some may +1, others tend to +0). I think thats >>> fine. >> >> Yes I agree this is a valid concern for any promotion vote - but thats >> not what Henri said and I think my point is still valid that if all >> PMC members only voted +1 on promotions of components they plan to >> contribute to then the sandbox may as well be shut down. Fortunatly >> thats not the case so far in this vote. > <snip/>
I'm comfortable +1'ing promotions for sandbox components I intend to follow, but not necessarily contribute to. I do not follow [compress] at all, but it seems to be doing well as things whiz by me on the list, so my +0. IMO, the metric is 3 folks planning to follow a component's progress (whether or not all of them are actively contributing code). -Rahul > Agreed on the need to get this right - that's partly why I voted that > way. Personally I think this is a case where committer votes should be > binding, not PMC. What we have is a project that, barring some large > social disagreement we'll happily move to proper if it's had a short > stabilization period (I'd be surprised at less than 6 months, but > really this is just that the component has passed some undefined bar > of happiness for our community) and it has 3+ committers. > > So ideally a minimum vote should be: lots of +0s, and 3 +1s from the > committers who will work on it. You're right that if we don't consider > those as binding that votes will fall flat. > > So maybe the alternative is to list the committers explicitly who are > supporting this component in the vote. Then I'll happily vote +1 on > these votes as I'll know the actual vote is not the test for having 3+ > committers. > > Hen > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
