On 11/21/12 7:26 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Ross Gardler ><rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >> On 21 November 2012 10:36, Bertrand Delacretaz >><bdelacre...@apache.org>wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) >>> <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>> > ...sub-"products", or the ability for a PMC to release multiple >>> "products", like e.g., >>> > like Lucene does now (Lucene-Java is a product; Solr is a product; >>> PyLucene is a product), >>> > that works b/c the sets of individuals that make up those interested >>>in >>> the sub "products" are >>> > not separate communities, they just release different portions of the >>> software that they scratch >>> > their itch on.... >>> >>> Agreed, that's what I meant - a PMC that groups multiple communities >>> is not good, whereas one that oversees several products is fine. >>> >> >> +1 this is a good way of restating my intention too. >> >> Seems we have lots of agreement so far. > >So, permit me to ask another, related, question. It seems to me that >the IPMC is concerned with the fact that a project is ready to leave, >but not so much which where it is going. A proposal to form a new TLP >is, I think, a straightforward question to the board, and the IPMC's >action is to make a recommendation to the board. > >A proposal to be integrated into an existing project is, I think, >within the authority of the existing product's PMC. If Project A >wishes to invite the members of Podling B to join and integrate their >code, then this looks to me like it could just happen without any >approval in advance from the board or even the IPMC. Voting in >committers is a PMC task, voting in PMC members is a PMC task with >board lazy approval, and copying (ip-cleared) code from one place in >ASF source control to another is a PMC task. > >I think that IPMC graduation votes in this case are a nice thing, but >it seems by this logic that they are not necessary. > >Does this make sense? I think your statement makes sense, but I see the votes as a way for IPMC members to assert that they believe all due diligence in IP clearance has been performed and that a sanity check has been done as to whether or not the podling is to be fully integrated into the PMC of the target project. >From this perspective the Incubator serves to provide a convenience to the target PMC in regards to releasability of code they are assuming and as a foundation preventative measure for ensuring we don't end up with massive, disconnected umbrellas comprised of former incubator podlings. > > >> >> Ross >> >> >>> >>> -Bertrand >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler) >> Programme Leader (Open Development) >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
