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
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 the public vote. So after the nominee accepts, they
sudd
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 a net pos
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 as a comm
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
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 of the Incubator PMC on: "Who can and
who can
not s
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
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
On 30/05/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Yoav,
On May 30, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> 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 refe
Hi Yoav,
On May 30, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
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 vot
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
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 will have 3 PMC votes
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
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 20:59, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> I like the second option. thanks for bringing this up.
I don't. It assumes that the [Discuss] thread was all dandy. If not, then the
vote passes in public and the Incubator PMC will become the 'bad guys who
doesn't let X in'.
Looking at
Hi Dims,
It wasn't completely clear from my message, but I intended this to be
a choice of the PPMC (with guidance by the Mentors) to hold the votes
either in private or in public.
I'd like to get others' input as well on whether the guidance here
should be
1. private vote on PPMC then
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 will have 3 PMC votes, why does a mentor
have to send the account setup to root?
I like the second option. thanks for bringing this up.
thanks,
dims
On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 incuba
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.
The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMC
members generally don't track podlings close
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, and the
37 matches
Mail list logo
