Apache Druid (incubating) PMC voted to accept two new committers: Fokko
Driesprong (
https://mail-search.apache.org/pmc/private-arch/druid-private/201909.mbox/%3CCAAMLo%3Da-zYUdQdfvAKX7F-DnO%3Do0uySmwfyjmd6gfaRC-W4Q%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com%3E)
and Furkan Kamaci (
https://mail-search.apache.org/pmc
Hi,
Two small additions to Dave's list:
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:40 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> (1) Discuss, propose and approve on private@. Provide permalink to threads on
> whimsy.
> (2) In case of PPMC then ACK to IPMC.
> (3) Invite individual to role using email templates. PPMC may develop th
Hi Roman,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
>>> On May 1, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>>
>>> 3. It is not obvious what the policy is for a podling to invite new
>>> committers and PPMC members. I don't believe it should be the
&
Hi Roman,
Thanks for the feedback.
> On May 1, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> 3. It is not obvious what the policy is for a podling to invite new
>> committers and PPMC members. I don't believe it should be the responsibility
>> of the podli
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Craig Russell wrote:
> I would respectfully suggest that the PPMC guide section that describes how
> to invite new committers and PPMC members is not adequate to the task.
>
> This is what I think is the relevant section of
> https://incubator.ap
.html
Section: Adding new committers
Section: Voting in a new PPMC member
We have followed this process for some recent members we added to OpenWhisk.
For PPMC members:
We held a vote on ppmc private, give the minimum 72 hours for the vote, and
close the vote when there are 3 or more votes.
But we
I would respectfully suggest that the PPMC guide section that describes how to
invite new committers and PPMC members is not adequate to the task.
This is what I think is the relevant section of
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html :
There are no ASF wide rules on how to decide when
ding
people via lazy consensus.
Hen
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Craig Russell wrote:
> I'd like to see a change in incubator policy w.r.t. voting new committers.
>
> While there are no Foundation policies on how to vote new committers, we
> do have best practices docu
p with the
> rules of their own
> (within the foundation policy and doctrine of course).
>
> Not sure how to reconcile these two aspects.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Craig Russell
> wrote:
> > I'd like to see a change in incubator po
trary rules but instead come up with the
rules of their own
(within the foundation policy and doctrine of course).
Not sure how to reconcile these two aspects.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Craig Russell wrote:
> I'd like to see a change in incubator policy w.r.t. voting n
Hi
It sounds good to me. It's a good idea.
Regards
JB
On Nov 3, 2017, 18:34, at 18:34, Craig Russell wrote:
>I'd like to see a change in incubator policy w.r.t. voting new
>committers.
>
>While there are no Foundation policies on how to vote new committers,
>
I'd like to see a change in incubator policy w.r.t. voting new committers.
While there are no Foundation policies on how to vote new committers, we do
have best practices documented in http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html
that explicitly calls for consensus approval of at least
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:31 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> Thanks Ted, Andrew, and sebb,
>
> FOAF files were one of first thing I checked, but I don't have a FOAF file,
> yet I (ptgoetz) am still listed as a member of Storm on p.a.o.
>
> I can confirm that some of the new members have commit right
Thanks Ted, Andrew, and sebb,
FOAF files were one of first thing I checked, but I don't have a FOAF file, yet
I (ptgoetz) am still listed as a member of Storm on p.a.o.
I can confirm that some of the new members have commit rights to our git repo,
but still aren't listed as members on p.a.o.
T
On 12 September 2014 00:12, sebb wrote:
> On 11 September 2014 23:06, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> Last time I had to figure this out, this link was the key:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#SVNaccess
>>
>
> LDAP is not used for Incubator podling members.
That page is for PMCs, so does not appl
On 11 September 2014 23:06, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Last time I had to figure this out, this link was the key:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#SVNaccess
>
LDAP is not used for Incubator podling members.
Podling groups are defined in the asf-authorization file.
I just checked
http://people.
On 11 September 2014 23:41, Andrew Phillips wrote:
>
>
> From what I recall, the information in people.as..o is generated from FOAF
> files, which are committed to a repo. See [1] for details.
Some of people.a.o is derived from FOAF file.
But the "committers by ..." pages are currently obtained
From what I recall, the information in people.a.o is generated from FOAF files,
which are committed to a repo. See [1] for details.
ap
[1] http://people.apache.org/foaf/index.html
Last time I had to figure this out, this link was the key:
http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#SVNaccess
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:23 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> We (Storm) have added a few committers/PPMC members, but they aren’t
> listed under the project on people.apache.org.
>
> Poking t
We (Storm) have added a few committers/PPMC members, but they aren’t listed
under the project on people.apache.org.
Poking through the code to generate that site, it looks like that information
comes from LDAP.
What is the process for updating that information (both now and
post-graduation)?
Yes, thank you both. Every so often maxwel's daemon sends all the
google results to the wrong side of the internet for me.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
wrote:
> On Friday, May 18, 2012 2:03:39 PM, "Benson Margulies"
> wrote:
>> I'm embarrassed to report that I'm feeling a
On Friday, May 18, 2012 2:03:39 PM, "Benson Margulies"
wrote:
> I'm embarrassed to report that I'm feeling a bit foggy on the new
> committer policy, and a quick tour with google failed to find it on a
> web page. We're long on pages about initial podling setup, and not so
> long on others.
>
>
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> I'm embarrassed to report that I'm feeling a bit foggy on the new
> committer policy, and a quick tour with google failed to find it on a
> web page. We're long on pages about initial podling setup, and not so
> long on others.
>
> So, if
I'm embarrassed to report that I'm feeling a bit foggy on the new
committer policy, and a quick tour with google failed to find it on a
web page. We're long on pages about initial podling setup, and not so
long on others.
So, if a podling has held a vote for a new contributor, what exactly
happens
t;> of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: Daniel Kulp
>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc: Alan Gates ; Jukka Zitting
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:42
the hang
>> of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Daniel Kulp
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: Alan Gates ; Jukka Zitting
>>>
>>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:42 AM
>>> Subject:
t;
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Daniel Kulp
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Alan Gates ; Jukka Zitting
>>
>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: Keeping an eye out for new committers
>>
>> On Friday, Ma
he.org
> Cc: Alan Gates ; Jukka Zitting
>
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Keeping an eye out for new committers
>
> On Friday, March 16, 2012 04:28:06 PM Alan Gates wrote:
>> With my mentor hat on, this is a poke to remind you (the PPMC) that
&g
On Friday, March 16, 2012 04:28:06 PM Alan Gates wrote:
> With my mentor hat on, this is a poke to remind you (the PPMC) that it's
> your job to be on the lookout for contributors that may be ready to
> become committers.
>
> I look for several things when I consider making someone a committer:
>
Alan Gates wrote on Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 16:28:06 -0700:
> One good way to find what patches a contributor has done is to look
> over the contributor report from JIRA. You can get this by going to
> your project's JIRA, and under the reports drop down on the right
> side, click on "Contribution Re
These look good and are a decent complement to
http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html
If you have the time would you mind adding your notes there (all
committers have write access to the ComDev site via the ASF CMS)
Ross
On 16 March 2012 23:28, Alan Gates wrote:
> Below is a generalized
Below is a generalized edition of an email I sent to the PPMC of one of the
projects I mentor (HCatalog). Jukka asked me to send it on to general@.
Hopefully you will find it useful.
Alan.
With my mentor hat on, this is a poke to remind you (the PPMC) that it's your
job to be on the lookout
On 7 November 2011 14:11, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
...
>> That being said, thank you for improving this template, I've added
>> your enhancements to the original template over at ComDev (along with
>> the modification suggested by Craig).
>
>
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> You use the phrase "committ rights" in this template. They are not
> "rights" they are "privileges". The reason this might be important is
> that very occasionally it is necessary for a PMC to remove these
> privileges, it is one of the few blu
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> You might consider this nit-picking but it might also be important at
> some point in the future.
>
> You use the phrase "committ rights" in this template. They are not
> "rights" they are "privileges". The reason this might be important is
> t
You might consider this nit-picking but it might also be important at
some point in the future.
You use the phrase "committ rights" in this template. They are not
"rights" they are "privileges". The reason this might be important is
that very occasionally it is necessary for a PMC to remove these
Hi Dennis,
I'd update item 3 below
On Nov 3, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
3. When you transmit the completed iCLA, indicate that you are
to be a committer and PPMC member of the Apache [OOo podling].
This will allow the Secretary to notify the PPMC when your
iCLA has
Here's a modification of the letter that I have been evolving. It has been
used in recent invitations from the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling where no
iCLA is on file.
You are welcome to try this. There are additional places to be customized
for use by a different podling. I have added bracket
Here's a Form letter that I have been evolving. It has been used in recent
invitations from the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling where an iCLA is already
on file.
You are welcome to try this. There are additional places to be customized
for use by a different podling. I have added brackets where
The site is correct. Officers have karma, not "arbitrary" others.
Craig
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Generally the mentors will do this for their respective podlings.
On 02/09/2010, at 9:50 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
root notified us of a raft of new
Hi Benson,
On Sep 1, 2010, at 7:38 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Leaving my snarky remark aside, I can now analyze the disconnect in
question. I misinterpreted you as meaning that *any* mentor should be
able to do it, not that projects generally have at least one mentor
who can. In my defense, I
Leaving my snarky remark aside, I can now analyze the disconnect in
question. I misinterpreted you as meaning that *any* mentor should be
able to do it, not that projects generally have at least one mentor
who can. In my defense, I read the tone of that web page as suggesting
that the people with e
On 02/09/2010, at 11:37 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> The site says that only the PMC chair, the ex-PMC chairs, and a
> shadowy underground of unnamed other individuals have access to grant
> commit karma ... not arbitrary mentors. The site couldn't possibly be
> inaccurate, could it?
It's corre
ally the mentors will do this for their respective podlings.
>
> On 02/09/2010, at 9:50 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> root notified us of a raft of new committers. Is someone in stock with
>> karma to grant karma?
>>
>> --
Generally the mentors will do this for their respective podlings.
On 02/09/2010, at 9:50 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> root notified us of a raft of new committers. Is someone in stock with
> karma to grant karma?
>
> --
Thanks, sorry about the out-of-order email responses.
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
> Done.
>
> Craig
>
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> root notified us of a raft of new committers. Is someone in stock with
Done.
Craig
On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
root notified us of a raft of new committers. Is someone in stock with
karma to grant karma?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
root notified us of a raft of new committers. Is someone in stock with
karma to grant karma?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> Christian Grobmeier, as you said, was an obvious choice and wanted
>> commit. He already had an account and his iCLA was on file, so I
>> added him to the commit list for log4php.
>
> I also support this decision. Sometimes it is necessary to be flexible
> to get moving again...
Even when the k
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
>
>> Good to see some new faces, but I'm curious about how it happened. I
>> don't recall any discussion or votes and I didn't request new accounts or
>> make changes to the SVN authorization
On Apr 28, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
Good to see some new faces, but I'm curious about how it happened.
I don't recall any discussion or votes and I didn't request new
accounts or make changes to the SVN authorization file.
Christian Grobmeier, as you said, was an obvious cho
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>> I don't know all the communities around ASF, but what I have seen is
>> that the "acceptance"/"decline" happens after the public vote. Entries
>> to PMCs seems more like "private vote" -> accept/decline -> "welcome"
>> in the communities I know o
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 07:48, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Niclas,
There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of
voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to
become a committer. This would have to be after the private votes are
Hi Niclas,
On Jun 4, 2007, at 6:04 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 07:48, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Niclas,
There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of
voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to
become a committer. This would
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 07:48, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Niclas,
>
> There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of
> voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to
> become a committer. This would have to be after the private votes are
> done and before
e incubator.
The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator
PMC
members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC
processes and voting
Thanks Craig. Some suggestions/comments:
On May 31, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Voting in a new committer
If a developer has contributed a significant number of high-quality
patches, is interested in continuing the contribution, and has
demonstrated the ability to work well wit
On 5/30/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views from
> different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who can not
> send the account setup mail to root?"
The view that counts is from
htt
Hi Bill,
Thanks for clarifying your position. This is a bit of a surprise,
since I thought I was just elaborating existing practice as
documented in the ppmc guide.
The section in question had been in the guides/ppmc for as long as
I've been at Apache, and I missed any dialog regarding th
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> How could a PPMC participate in a vote on the Incubator PMC's private
>>> list?
>>
>> It cannot, and I don't believe I implied that this would be the case.
>> The idea is that the PPMC, with the help of the Mentors, conducts a
>> discussion and a
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Martin,
On May 30, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
[...]
So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau
for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the
PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE
Speaking of being unnecessarily hostile and confrontational, thanks for
bagging Jakarta.
FWIW, The most recent Jakarta committer votes have been conducted in
private, and what you describe is not a current Jakarta practice.
Where are Noel's comments about bad Jakarta practice? I had a quick look
As this seems to be an evolving Best Practice, I don't know that when
started a vote recently on two new committers for CXF that all of this was
apparent to me at the time. The current documentation at least
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html seems to indicate that we just
need
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
>>> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email
>>> with a cover state
Hi Martin,
On May 30, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
[...]
So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe
Bleau for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE]
on the PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private
inc
Hi Bill,
On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote
email
with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podl
Craig L Russell wrote:
[...]
So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for
committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the PPMC
private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator PMC list
with references to the discussion and vote of the P
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email
> with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's
> developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of
I'd like to discuss one detail of the process for new committers.
On May 30, 2007, at 10:56 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
If the nominee is already an Apache committer on another project,
the proposer asks the incubator PMC chair to update the
authorization file to include the nominee
Here's what I'd like to do with the ppmc guide. Change:
Voting in a new committer
If a developer has contributed a significant number of high-quality
patches, is interested in continuing the contribution, and has
demonstrated the ability to work well with others under the Apache
guidelines,
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Carl,
>>>
>>> On May 30, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>>>
One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views
from different members
g
Carl.
Craig L Russell wrote:
Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
The new text says
Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are bindi
On May 30, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Craig Russell wrote:
I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by
the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
TLP is best practice for the incubator.
Personally, if I saw a vote on the incu
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views from
> different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who can not
> send the account setup mail to root?"
The view that counts is from
http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newcommitter. Please note
Craig Russell wrote:
> I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to by
> the guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a
> TLP is best practice for the incubator.
> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
> new committer on a po
the message,
> to make sure that the request is valid.
>
> I agree that it's better for the PPMC members themselves to be able to
> make the request to root, but I'd have to leave it up to infrastructure
> to decide if they can handle it.
>
> Craig
>
>>
&
w to grant commit
privileges to people who demonstrate to the project that they deserve
it.
I'm also very aware that most incubator PMC members simply don't have
the time to perform due diligence on requests for commit access for
podlings. So what I&#
e diligence on requests for commit access for
podlings. So what I'm proposing allows incubator PMC members to
perform due diligence if they want to, or simply provide oversight of
the PPMC's actions on new committers.
Craig
Yoav
-
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Carl,
On May 30, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views
from different members of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and who can
not send the account setup mail to root?"
Given each new committer vote
e committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
The new text says
Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote
is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a
committer for the project
Hi,
On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
On the other hand, if I saw a vote on t
On 5/30/07, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
behind this practice. If the mail to root has to be cc-ed to general
list and PPMC and has 3 PMC votes on it then it would seem to me that
it could be send by anyone.
I can only think of one reason: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not accessible to
PPM
st practice for the incubator.
> >
> > The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC
> > members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
> > get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
> >
> > But i
for a
TLP is best practice for the incubator.
The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC
members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
But incubator PMC members should be very good a
s on it then it would seem to me that
it could be send by anyone.
Carl.
Craig L Russell wrote:
Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
The
P is best practice for the incubator.
The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC
members generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PP
don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to
get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers.
But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC
processes and voting based on the PPMC vote process.
Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC l
Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times,
I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the
distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers.
The new text says
Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote is
positive
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
A suggestion that one of our mentors had made to us was to do a poll for
concerns on the private list to see if PPMC was happy with the committer
to be added to the project (notice and to see if any of PPMC have
concerns). If all went well on the
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> A suggestion that one of our mentors had made to us was to do a poll for
> concerns on the private list to see if PPMC was happy with the committer
> to be added to the project (notice and to see if any of PPMC have
> concerns). If all went well on the PPMC list, the sugg
fficiently motivated.
Agreed.
I don't personally want to see the IPMC private list given over to
voting in new committers on podlings. That would make, IMO that list
pretty unusable. My take on Noel's comments is that the podling should
ensure that it has got 3 +1s from IPMC members.
iently motivated.
Agreed.
> I don't personally want to see the IPMC private list given over to
> voting in new committers on podlings. That would make, IMO that list
> pretty unusable. My take on Noel's comments is that the podling should
> ensure that it has got 3 +1s from IP
Martin Ritchie wrote:
> I'd like to get some consensus on what the PPMC's role is so
> that we can update the documentation.
> On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The PPMC has no standing within the ASF. It is a useful structure for the
> > Incubator, but the only binding
give a bigger pool of recognized people that could
pickup the completed votes and create the account requests.
Alternatively the IPMC could then notifiy the podling-private list
that their vote was successfull so that the PPMC could create the
account request (Learning that process) and send
Noel,
It has been a while since I posted this and the conversation has gone
cold. I'd like to get some consensus on what the PPMC's role is so
that we can update the documentation.
See embedded comments below.
On 11/04/07, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman
On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> 1. Only IPMC members (e.g. mentors) should send root requests for new
>podling committers.
> 2. A podling committer vote requires three IPMC +1s to be approved
> (ideally the mentors, assuming the project still
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> 1. Only IPMC members (e.g. mentors) should send root requests for new
>podling committers.
> 2. A podling committer vote requires three IPMC +1s to be approved
> (ideally the mentors, assuming the project still has three mentors).
> This [is] not how I read what we ha
On 4/6/07, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, I think that has cleared things up a bit for me I'll send out
these requests that I've been sitting on for a few weeks now as we
need to get the accounts set up for our new committers.
Just as it appeared this subjec
Ok, I think that has cleared things up a bit for me I'll send out
these requests that I've been sitting on for a few weeks now as we
need to get the accounts set up for our new committers.
Cheers
On 04/04/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wro
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
> huh? The instructions [1] say "The project PMC needs to send an email to
> root". It doesn't say the "project PMC chair". Since root can easily
> verify pmc members from committee-info.txt [2], I don't see why any
> member of the PMC cannot submit the request.
Whoops :
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
