Yes, and I briefly confused the two, and fessed up. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is > what we're talking about. Not the Strawman. > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Oh, my mistake! (smile) I confused pTLP with the "Strawman" proposal > there > > for a minute. In the pTLP proposal, there are no new-to-the-Foundation > > project members on the pTLP PMC. > > > > "All proposals for new ASF projects must include an initial PMC chair and > > an initial set of PMC members. These people must be acceptable to the > > board. It is the responsibility of the Incubator Committee to vett these > > people. All of them must have experience on existing PMCs" > > > > > > Newcomers to Apache *might* get committership depending how the > > only-members-as-PMC decide. They don't get even non-binding > stakeholdership > > in decisionmaking on new commiters, releases, and so on. > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. > > > > > > Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal > > > ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals, > > > then the decision is reviewed as a whole. But this is not how things > > > would work in a pTLP, right? Individuals there would effectively cast > > > votes +1 (binding), or -1 (binding), +1 (non-binding), or -1 > > > (non-binding), etc., depending if they are a Member or not. Maybe in > > > practice the pTLP PMC wouldn't write down their votes like that, but > > > somehow the distinction must be presented in the tallies to be > > meaningful. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> On 25.01.2015 19:51, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > >> >> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems > > with > > >> > > > > >> > a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the impression > > >> > > > > >> > that the PPMC can make binding decisions. > > >> > > > >> > Close. The PPMC membership feels they have made a decision that > > matters > > >> > with equal input. > > >> > Certainly on PPMCs I've been on, > > >> > there is awareness that everything is > > >> > provisional > > >> > . Still, a > > >> > process takes place on PPMC mailing lists leading to a tallied > > outcome. > > >> > The input that leads to this output is the consensus or voting of *a > > >> group > > >> > of equal peers*. > > >> > This output is handed to the IPMC in aggregate. > > >> > When casting votes on the PPMC lists there are no +1 (binding) or +1 > > >> > (non-binding) distinctions made. PPMC sends the outcome over to the > > IPMC > > >> > feeling some level of ownership having just participated in a > decision > > >> > making process as equal > > >> > s > > >> > . (Or at least so I think, in some perhaps quaint notion.) Of course > > in > > >> > IPMC voting it is different, but the IPMC is where supervision > > happens, > > >> or > > >> > doesn't, as some argue. > > >> > > >> This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. Any committer can > > >> propose a release. The PMC must (!) start a (public) vote. Anyone can > > >> vote, with PMC votes being binding. /Any/ -1 vote, either from PMC > > >> member or plain committer, should block the release and trigger a > > >> discussion to find a solution; and in this discussion (which purpose > is > > >> to reach consensus on a solution), PMC members have no more voice than > > >> any other community member. > > >> > > >> If the PMC decides to ignore a -1 on a release vote, they'd better > have > > >> really good reasons for that, or I'd expect the Board to come down > like > > >> a ton of bricks on that PMC. > > >> > > >> The situation is slightly different with new committer/PMC member > > >> nominations and votes, which are private; you have a point there. > > >> > > >> -- Brane > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> On 25.01.2015 19:16, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > >> >>> With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make votes we call binding on > > >> matters > > >> >> of > > >> >>> their own project. > > >> >> As other people have said, PPMC members (that are not also IPMC > > >> members) > > >> >> do not have binding votes, neither for releases nor for inviting > new > > >> >> committers/PPMC members. The "binding" bit lies with the IPMC, > which > > >> can > > >> >> revoke any formal decision made by the PPMC. > > >> >> > > >> >> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems > > with > > >> >> a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the > impression > > >> >> that the PPMC can make binding decisions. In this respect, there's > no > > >> >> practical difference between the current IPMC model and the > proposed > > >> >> pTLP model. > > >> >> > > >> >> Of course, when it comes to /technical/ decisions, there's no such > > >> thing > > >> >> as a vote, so the term "binding" does not apply. Consensus, of one > > form > > >> >> or another, always rules: and the IPMC or mentors can't meddle in > > this > > >> >> case. > > >> >> > > >> >> -- Brane > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> 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 > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
