(for the benefit of those joining the thread, here's the context) > > On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake > > both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to > > a failure of oversight has personal consequences. > > > > i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very > > little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever > > vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the > > incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and > > effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run.
On 12/22/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you mean the incubator PMC or the project PMCs? ATM the sponsoring pmc votes and then the incubator pmc and the mentors do the work :) > I do think that there is much at stake also for the project PMCs.... > If the projects they bring in don't work out, this will also be a > problem for the project community. how much that is true probably depends on the particular pmc in question. problems with TLPs are ASF problems. if it were generally true that every pmc cared so much about every podling, then i suspect that fewer people would be worried. ATM though (unlike most ASF votes) each +1 is only a recommendation rather than an active promise to help. it's committing someone else's time and reputation... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
