Same here. +1. On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +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] > >
