On 2/15/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that's true but there are reasons why copying the email to the PMC is good
> practice:
>
> 1 the PMC may contain people (such as officers and members) who are not on
> the dev lists.
> 2 the PMC list should provide a permenant record of
On 2/9/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
> >> dev list or ppmc list? Only PMC members' votes are binding for
> >> full TLPs; I suggest having the vote on the dev list as mentioned
> >> but only the PPMC members' votes being bi
On Feb 11, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
Firstly, thank you for clarifying the process. With the last milestone
release of the Woden podling we struggled. Just a quick question ...
you seem to imply that every podling has a PPMC. In Woden we do not as
we don't envisage ever becoming a T
Sorry ... the question is ... are we doing this right? Or should every
podling actually have a PPMC.
Thanks,
Jeremy
On 2/11/06, Jeremy Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Firstly, thank you for clarifying the process. With the last milestone
> release of the Woden podling we struggled. Just a qui
Firstly, thank you for clarifying the process. With the last milestone
release of the Woden podling we struggled. Just a quick question ...
you seem to imply that every podling has a PPMC. In Woden we do not as
we don't envisage ever becoming a TLP. So our binding votes are the
committers' votes.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> This is a follow up on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-14, which I opened to
> track this doc topic.
>
> I'd like to clarify the "Releases" section in
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html (I'll also
> add a table of contents to
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> >
> >+1 sounds good. Perhaps its good to incorporate by reference the HTTPD
> >release guidelines or similar.
>
> good suggestion.
>
> thanks,
Also Robert has been doing a heap of work pulling
together all of the information about releases.
See http
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good info, thanks! The relationship (committers == PPMC) seems
reasonable to me, especially in light of the current discussion
of releases.
Martin
Martin Sebor wrote:
I thought every committer's vote counted as bi
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ...
> There is no need to "notify the PPMC".
>
> PMC == Project Management Committee == the people who make decisions
> for a project == the people with binding votes in public decisions
> == the people on the dev list we listen to when they vote.
>
> Anyone not on the d
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> [...]
>
>> it should be public vote, so on the public -dev list. Here's a
>> suggested refinement:
>>
>> "Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the
>> Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list and notif
On Feb 9, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
dev list or ppmc list? Only PMC members' votes are binding for
full TLPs; I suggest having the vote on the dev list as mentioned
but only the PPMC members' votes being binding.
it should be public vote, so on the public -dev list. Here's a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> I thought every committer's vote counted as binding.
Grey-area time here.. In projects where committers == PMC,
that's the case. The confusion probably has its origins
in the HTTP server project back before there *was* an AS
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
[...]
it should be public vote, so on the public -dev list. Here's a
suggested refinement:
"Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the
Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list and notify
the Podling's PPMC list that the vote
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Well, that's I think the official rules of most projects. In practice
what I've seen happen usually is that when someone throws a -1 its for
a serious reason and the vote is simply aborted, the problem is fixed,
and a new release is made.
Just t
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[...]
"Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the
Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling -dev list.
dev list or ppmc list? Only PMC members' votes are binding for
full TLPs; I suggest
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>
This is a follow up on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-14, which I opened to
track this doc topic.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
(2) Process details
I'd like to modify this se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>>This is a follow up on
>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-14, which I opened to
>>track this doc topic.
>
> [...]
>
>>(2) Process details
>>
>>I'd like to modify this sentence:
>>
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Leo Simons wrote:
>
> Well, that's I think the official rules of most projects. In practice
> what I've seen happen usually is that when someone throws a -1 its for
> a serious reason and the vote is simply aborted, the problem is fixed,
> and a new r
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 08:21:27AM -0800, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
In
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200601.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roy wrote:
Minimum three binding (official PMC) +1 votes and a majority of all
votes bei
Leo Simons wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 08:21:27AM -0800, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
In
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200601.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roy wrote:
Minimum three binding (official PMC) +1 votes and a majority of all
votes being positive. Releases do
Martin Sebor wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
...
"Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release,
the Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling -dev list. If the
majority of all votes is positive, then send a summary of that vote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and formally request the
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
This is a follow up on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-14, which I opened to
track this doc topic.
[...]
(2) Process details
I'd like to modify this sentence:
"Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the
Podling SHALL formal
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 08:21:27AM -0800, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> In
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200601.mbox/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> Roy wrote:
>
> >Minimum three binding (official PMC) +1 votes and a majority of all
> >votes being positive. Releases do not nee
Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:00:09PM -0800, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
...
(2) Process details
I'd like to modify this sentence:
"Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the
Podling SHALL formally request the Incubator PMC approve such a release."
A
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:00:09PM -0800, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> (1) What's the "Charter" referred to in this section?
>
> There are two "Reference to Charter" sentences:
>
> "Such approval SHALL be given only after the Incubator PMC has followed
> the process detailed in (Reference to Charte
25 matches
Mail list logo
