On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > You know when to vote and *how* to vote. I see no reason to deny your vote.
Of course. It's always seemed awkward if you can't contribute technically to suddenly have a binding vote. I'm sure if I *wanted* to learn how to build something with Maven, I could. But, why? =) So, it makes me leery on being forced to cast a vote on a release - on par with those who have actually tested it and know something about the codebase. The standard that I force myself to adhere to on Subversion and httpd for example would be something that I'd fall short with in OODT. > The (only) problem to arise would be if OODT was at the minimum of (3) > ASF Members, and your vote was required. With Chris becoming a Member, > OODT is at 5 Members that could comprise the mini/pseudo TLP that I > propose. (maybe there are others interested, but I have zero insight > into this community) Sure. It's just that Chris and I have discussed the pain points in the Incubation process, so we're on the lookout for making it easier on us. =) Plus, the experience with Subversion also showed me where things break down too. > I'm not sure that I'm reading the above properly, but... whatevs. > Under my proposed TLP-based approach, the PMC would be comprised of: > justin, jean, ross, ian, chris. The current committers (who are also > on the PPMC, presumably) would be invited to the private@ list, but > would not be on the PMC. Thus, they would have non-binding votes > across all project decisions. But that should not be a problem as > those PMC members also understand how to build and listen to > consensus. If there are issues in the community, then the difference > between binding and non-binding votes makes *zero* difference. If we ran it with the intention that the PMC is there to solely provide non-technical oversight and that the PPMC does the actual work, I think that's something I could live with and address my concerns in the overall process. I don't think this is at odds with what you are saying nor would it run afoul of any corporate structures. It could just be the informal agreement between the PMC members that the PPMC should be the ones making the technical decisions. (If some other set of mentors wanted to run it differently, they could. But, this separation is one I could live with myself.) > The (podling) project/PMC would report directly to the Board. No more > peanut gallery, or a second-guessing group. Right. The listed members of the PMC are on the line dealing with the Board. (Hmm...would the PMC require a VP? I guess so.) If the Board has an issue with how they are running things, the Board can chime in. > I do agree there is a lot of hand-waving around "how to graduate", but > I presume that the community can figure that out and provide > information for future projects and communities. I very much like the Incubator providing what the general checklist form would look like. The Board could receive the checklist, review it, and then vote on the Graduation resolution. It'd also raise the oversight of the podlings (in this structure) back to the Board...which is likely a good thing so as things don't get hidden. -- justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
