The Apache way is *"community over code"*, as a healthy community we should encourage community growth. IMO I do not consider adding a new member to the initial committer list as a big change to the proposal. In fact, now I believe if we had a separate VOTE for him, we will not have this much traffic in this thread.
Deepal > It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change > on a vote in progress is not acceptable. > > I note that this change is different to the trademark promise made > earlier since that one had been agreed in the discuss thread. That > change was merely bringing the proposal into line with the discussion. > This change was discussed after the vote had been called, which is > quite different. > > I can also understand the concern that there is a potential for a > "slippery slope" here (although I will note this is not the first time > proposals have been tweaked during a vote - which should just be a > formality since consensus is gauged through discussion). > > I am disappointed that following (what appears to be) unwritten rules > to the letter rather than in the spirit of community development is > more important to the IPMC members who have spoken, but I have to > accept the majority opinion. > > I consider my wrists well and truly slapped and appreciate that nobody > has gone so far as to veto the vote. > > I trust someone who believes this is a fixed rule rather than a > social-norm by which we are guided will now go and document it > appropriately in [2] (see ISSUE 09 [1]). > > (I keep wanting to delete that last sentence as it feels like a > parting shot - it's not meant that way, it is an important point. > I don't agree with this new rule, but I do appear to be in the minority. In > an attempt to prove it's not a parting shot I've make the change > myself in r866129: > > Index: content/incubation/Process_Description.html > =================================================================== > --- content/incubation/Process_Description.html > (.../production/incubator) (revision 866128) > +++ content/incubation/Process_Description.html > (.../staging/incubator/trunk) (revision 866128) > @@ -231,6 +231,8 @@ > getting feedback about what is actually happening. The Sponsor will > typically take about 7-10 days before announcing a vote result. > </p> > +<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed. > + No further changes are accepted.</p> > <p>If that vote is affirmative, the Sponsor (unless the Sponsor is > already the Incubator PMC) will propose to the > > ) > > Ross > > [1] > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013#Issue_09_-_People_do_not_follow_through_to_improve_Incubator_documentation > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html > > On 18 June 2013 17:12, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> However, in this specific case the social norm *should* be to allow the >>> change to proceed - that's the most efficient process. >> Modifying a vote that has started is a slippery slope. (The same is true for >> reusing version numbers: ANY change to something that has been tagged must >> get >> a new version number - no matter how small the change may be.) One solution >> is >> to restart the vote. Another is to run a parallel vote for the >> delta/amendment. >> >> Concretely, can't you just start a thread on private@ saying "The >> would-be-PPMC >> has consensus on inviting X as a committer"? This would allow you to invite >> X >> to be a committer shortly after the original vote ends. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > >
