On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:24 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been away so a little slow in finishing this but i have just now made
> an update to the guide, see
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1508433
I guess preserving the 2010 status quo was too much too much to ask for. :)
> This does not include anything yet for the request from Bertrand to still
> require at least one mentor vote but instead goes more towards the
> suggestion that we don't even need to document a standard for
> committerpromotions- projects and podlings alike are free to experiment with
> whatever process they deem appropriate.
Regarding Bertrand's request, I note that while the process for adding
committers has been relaxed, Mentor participation and IPMC notification are
still required for PPMC membership. In my opinion, this is a fine scheme, as
it is consistent with how the Board requires notification for PMC membership
but not committership.
(Podlings which unify committership and PPMC membership must simply follow the
more strict PPMC member processes for all additions, which seems fine as
well.)
We still need to clarify the notification guidelines for PPMC member votes,
though. Per the 2010 consensus, the email which kicks off the VOTE was to be
forwarded. However, this is not consistent with how the Board does things,
which explains Bertrand's "clarifying" commit later specifying that it is the
"RESULT" email which must be forwarded.
The Board recently passed a resolution changing the procedure for PMC member
additions.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2013/board_minutes_2013_06_19.txt
1) A notice of the appointment shall be delivered to the Board's
mailing list and the PMC's private discussion list, as recorded
within the Foundation's mailing list archives, at least 72 hours
prior to the effective date of the appointment, where said notice
may be sent by the chairman, or by any existing member of the PMC
if it contains a link to a formal decision by the PMC approving
of the appointment;
2) If any Director objects to the appointment, in writing, prior to
its effective date, the appointment shall not be effective until
72 hours after all such objections are resolved, or until a
resolution making the appointment is adopted by the Board at some
regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors; and,
3) The appointment shall not be effective until the Foundation's
records of committee membership are updated accordingly.
To resolve the ambiguity, I suggest the Incubator adapt our own procedures to
mimic TLP procedures as closely as possible:
* Forward the RESULT email to private@incubator.
* 72 hour implicit approval.
> The change does update the podling report template with a section to note
> any committers added since the last report so that we are aware of what is
> happening.
The reporting guidelines for top-level projects request both the last
committer election and the last PMC member election.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/reporting
I need to generate the report template for next month imminently. I'm
reluctant to incorporate last-minute changes into the per-podling template,
so I plan to be conservative and use the old format. However, going
forward, I'd like to suggest that we try to harmonize Incubator podling
reporting with the Board's guidelines for TLPs.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
