On May 8, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
> 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. We're the IPMC, we can change the rules if we need to. I don't see how my proposal will change things for well functioning podlings with active mentors, but I do agree that we should not mess with the mojo of successful podlings. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
