On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:00:14AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote: > > On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Eric Johnson <e...@tibco.com> wrote: > > One last suggested refinement: > > > > At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the > > third is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as > > one of the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point that > > has come out of the discussion has been a lack of clear responsibility. > > Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as backup > > for the other. > > Yes, this was what I was thinking as well. Two active mentors, maybe one or > two inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves inactive the > active mentor know not to assume anything of them.
I may be incorrect in my understanding of the official ASF policy here [1], but WRT a release, doesn't it require at least 3 +1 votes of the appropriate PMC (in the case of podlings, the IPMC)? If the mentors were limited to 2 within the podlings, then would that leave all podling in a position of having to get a third +1 from the IPMC? In some cases, podlings have enough active mentors that this whole thread doesn't apply (clearly the discussion is about areas where there are problems). My concern would be making it harder for *well functioning* podlings / mentors to get through releases. -chip [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
