+1. I very much like the idea of the PPMC -> Incubator PMC relationship modeling the board whenever possible.
Hen On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to: > --- > Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the > Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the > vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the > podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best > practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer > *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the > discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and > vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK > the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy > consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member > for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is > approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer > invitation process.* > --- > > This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt > full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers > as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual > voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute > oversight. > > WDYT? -- justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
