-1The proposed process improves on the existing process by aligning it better with the process by which a PMC communicates with the board.
But as I've said earlier, there is no indication here that three +1 votes are needed from incubator PMC members.
It makes people crazy if they have to look in multiple places to find what they need to do. This paragraph should make it clear what a successful vote would be.
From the discussion earlier, there would have to be three +1 votes from incubator PMC members prior to a lazy vote. And there's no discussion of what the process is if there are not three binding +1 votes in the PPMC.
Needs work. Craig On Jun 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi, I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html . There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC members are required. That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the PPMC are very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If the vote is positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the proposer...So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes, so that we can clarify this and move on. -Bertrand On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have: --- 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 calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion andvote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there arethree +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members). --- 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 lazyconsensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC memberfor 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]
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
