On May 8, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> > 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? > > We're the IPMC, we can change the rules if we need to. Oh, I see this is an ASF rule. Maybe we should have three active mentors? Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
