Committer = can change the code PMC = project management committee iPMC = incubator project management committee PPMC = podlings project management committee
Only PMC members votes are binding. In the case of a podling, only incubator PMC votes are binding. However, as you can consider the PPMC as a PMC in training, their votes are considered important. In Wave so far, all committers are also PPMC members, so Ali could have just labelled folks 'PPMC' instead of 'committer' and Joe's concern would have been addressed. Upayavira On Fri, Jun 21, 2013, at 01:14 AM, Michael MacFadden wrote: > Joe, > > Thanks for your comments. Can you clarify for us the PPMC comment. I > think we are a bit confused between the concepts of a top level project > PMC, the incubator IPMC, the PPMC you have mentioned, and piddling > mentors. I don't think we had ever discussed nominating a PPMC assuming > that first p stands for podling. > > I think we were under the inkers soon that the mentors were the > management committe for the podling. Is there a good document on this > somewhere? > > ~Michael > > On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:01 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > > > I should have added: please do address the problems here and re-roll and > > I will be sure to examine that release in a timely fashion. Don't let a > > -1 discourage you, as most incubating projects have to go through a > > learning curve. > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013, at 06:59 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > >> Hi Ali, > >> > >> Comments inline. > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013, at 05:24 PM, Ali Lown wrote: > >> > >>> The result from the wave-dev vote can be found at: > >>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-wave-dev/201306.mbox/%3CCABRGrVfPOwN3E8N-uScruYbxdezpfZzAJHMp8dN%2BUfpF6s%2BDGw%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >> > >> I find this slightly confusing as I expected at least 3 PPMC votes, but > >> I guess Wave has opted for the committer == PPMC model? > >> > >>> Wave 0.4 RC3 artefacts are available at: > >>> https://people.apache.org/~al/wave_rc/0.4-rc3/ > >>> Note: The checksums are SHA-512's > >> > >> A couple of things: > >> > >> - Preferably, you'd only include *one* set of artifacts to vote on. Am I > >> voting on the zip, the bz2? I'm uncomfortable voting without checking > >> out all the source releases as I have no way of knowing that the zip == > >> the bz2 release without inspecting both. > >> > >> - Preferably, there'd be no binary release in the artifacts you're > >> asking to have voted on. Convenience binaries are fine, but they're not > >> an official release, so it'd be better not to include them with the > >> files we're meant to be voting on. > >> > >> - I have to -1 this as there are several binary (.jar) files included in > >> the release that don't belong in a source release. (under > >> third_party/codegen/*) > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> jzb > >> -- > >> Joe Brockmeier > >> j...@zonker.net > >> Twitter: @jzb > >> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > > > > > > Best, > > > > jzb > > -- > > Joe Brockmeier > > j...@zonker.net > > Twitter: @jzb > > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
