On Nov 22, 2013, at 1:09 AM, ant elder wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:33 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Marvin Humphrey >>> <mar...@rectangular.com>wrote: >>> I think this is getting too hung up on vetting releases is the be all and >>> end all of PMC membership when really there are other just as if not more >>> important things. >> >> Let's say we strike that bullet point from the proposal. It seems like we're >> making good progress, because that moves us closer to *both* you and Dave >> Fisher. The remaining question is whether we can arrive at an agreement in >> terms of how many IPMC votes it takes to get a release approved. >> >> Ant, you proposed a minimum of one IPMC vote for each release: >> >> http://s.apache.org/CHS >> >> How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that they >> don't require at least three binding votes, but instead make it at least >> three votes only one of which must be binding. That would mean there would >> still be the element of oversight that a mentor vote gives but avoids all >> the problems with not having three mentors. >> >> Dave responded with this critique: >> >> http://s.apache.org/MSZ >> >> I don't think this is prudent, having only one binding vote is too low a >> check. We at the ASF have a responsibility to the public. I want to be >> certain that no one steam rolls the process. Just the fact that there are >> edge cases means we need to be careful. >> >> This formulation was conceived to address both of your concerns: >> >> * PPMC votes are binding for every release except the first. >> * One IPMC vote is required for each release after the first. >> >> Ant, can you accept the elevated requirement for the first vote? If we only >> have to muster that many IPMC members once per podling, I think it's much >> more >> doable. >> > > Sure, its a step in the right direction. I do think we could still do > more but that would be a good start.
I am not sure that this is a step in the correct direction. Regards, Dave > > ...ant > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
