For future uses, PLEASE follow RFC 2119 when writing such guidelines. If we
are going to codify, let's be precise.
Vote and comments below.
--- Noel
> [-1] - Any proposal should hit [EMAIL PROTECTED] first, No PR before that.
This conflates two issues. The PR issue is addressed by the next item. So
the real question is whether a proposal should hit [EMAIL PROTECTED] first.
First as in before what? I certainly don't have a problem with a proposal
being discussed with another PMC before it is proposed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[+1] - Any PR [MUST] be vetted by PRC, No Excuses.
Note my change to the wording. This should be followed by all ASF projects,
period.
[+1] - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as mentors
(without regard to affiliation)
Not everyone will agree, but since the proposed wording is SHOULD and not
MUST, I'm in favor of this policy.
[-1] - Any new proposal should list at least one person as a
infrastucture volunteer.
Not necessary, and probably entirely impractical.
[-1] - A sponsoring PMC should hold their VOTE to sponsor a proposal or
IP Clearance 72 hours *AFTER* it is posted on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I tend to agree with Bill Rowe on this issue. Why would the proposal even
be posted here if the sponsoring PMC hasn't committed to it?
[+1] - Any existing committer from any Apache project should be able to
volunteer to work on the proposed project within the 72 hours. Any
later, it would be through regular karma process. (To promote
inclusion/diversification from day one)
I agree with the gist, but we might want to fine-tune this item. And you're
missing the really vital point that each project should have a PPMC as it is
formed, and that will set policy for new Committer karma.
[+1] - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as well
[ ] - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code
gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN)
I think that it has to be OK'd by *SOME* PMC's vote, but perhaps that could
be either the Incubator or the importing PMC. A watchdog on this might be
requiring sign-off from the VP of Legal Affairs, but I'm not sure that I
would want to put that responsibility on the role.
[-1] - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin
incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor.
I'm relatively satisfied that since the Incubator PMC can vote to either
terminate or graduate a project, that we have sufficient controls without
having to second guess a PMC before they can even get started.
[ ] - Within 72 hours of a new project hitting the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailing list, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory
vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented
by the sponsoring PMC.
I'm waivering between +1 and -1 on this. The real question I have is why we
have any timeframe at all. At any point in time, the Incubator PMC has the
right (and obligation) to raise issues about a project that might be in
trouble. The Incubator PMC consists largely of ASF Members and Officers. I
see no need to slam a door on them.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
