Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> I very much like the idea of the PPMC -> Incubator PMC relationship
>>> modeling the board whenever possible.
>> Keeping in mind that the PPMC has no actual standing, so the vote still
>> requires the standard 3 +1 and more +1 than -1 from PMC members. Which
is
>> why we always encourage podlings to have at least 3 Mentors.
> I disagree. I'm fine with a PPMC voting to add a new committer as
> long as the mentor(s) has approved it.
We may be arguing solely over a misunderstanding in communication.
The single fundamental governing policy accross all ASF projects is that the
PMC collectively makes all decisions. The Incubator-specific construct
known as the PPMC has no standing. We can rename the thing if the acronym
is too hard for people to keep straight, but PPMC != PMC. Yes we agree that
the the PPMC is encouraged to participate, but the only binding votes on the
PPMC are those cast by PMC members.
> if at least one member of the Incubator PMC is executing direct oversight
> and the rest of the Incubator PMC has the opportunity to execute
oversight,
> then I'm satisfied. Enforcing 3 mentors is just damn silly, IMO.
I am not talking about enforcing 3 mentors. I simply said that HAVING them
makes it easier to get the REQUIRED 3 votes from PMC members. Nothing more,
nothing less.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
