On Wed, Nov 13, 2013, at 06:14 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:58 PM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So, we _can_ let podlings have their own binding release votes and we > > could do our own "pTLP" type experiments without even needing to go to > > the board. We should try that. Not for every podling but just for > > select ones where the circumstances mean it will work better than the > > current approach. If there are no major objections to some experiments > > with this approach then i'd like to start trying one. > > +1 to run an experiment. The position that Roy has taken changes the > equation. > > While a number of people have expressed a preference for the approach of > electing more podling contributors directly onto the IPMC, in practice it > remains uncertain whether the IPMC is capable of identifying, nominating > and > voting in enough candidates -- as evidenced by some threads currently in > progress on private@incubator. > > I propose that the experiment take the following form: > > 1. The initial PPMC shall be composed exclusively of IPMC members. > 2. PPMC votes are binding for every release except the first. > 3. One IPMC vote is required for each release after the first. > > I believe that this model provides sufficient oversight because the first > release must cross a high bar, and because it changes the dynamics of > electing PPMC members: even core contributors will now have to earn PPMC > membership, demonstrating to an initial PPMC composed of IPMC members > that > they understand the Apache Way well enough to steward their project.
I would be very supportive of such an experiment. Make the size of the merit granted fit the stage at which an individual is at. I presume #4 is: Three +1 votes from PPMC members required. Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
