incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
Date Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:47:31 GMT

Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:16:49PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> [snip everything above that I agree with]


>>Incubator PMC members not engaged in active discussion and development 
>>on a project are on the project PPMC in quality of observers. They 
>>should refrain from voting on PPMC decisions unless really necessary, 
>>thus acting as vetoers of last resort.
> [...]
>>Development and discussions go on the dev lists, where the Mentors are 
>>the ones doing active oversight.
> These two sub-sections are contradictory. Since technical decisions
> should not be occuring on any PMC list*, it is not necessary that PMCers
> be technical contributors. It is completely possible that non-technical
> contributions earn someone an invitation to a particular PMC (eg.
> document contributors).

Hmmm, this is correct, in fact it's what I meant...

> I don't agree that Incubator PMC members should only be second-class
> PPMCers. If an Incubator PMC member wishes to volunteer their time
> to participate as a seed PMC member on the new PPMC, then they
> should be a first-class member.

Hmmm... what I mean is that if an Incubator PMC member is not going to 
follow the project once it's out of incubation *and* the PPMC is 
functioning well without him, there is no need for him to necessarily 
intervene in every decision.

Instead, if he participates in the project on the dev list, and this is 
not of course limited to codin, as you correctly remember, he should 
also be actively involved in the PPMC discussions. Such a figure is that 
of Mentors, hence my note.

"Incubator PMC members not engaged in active discussion and development
on a project are on the project PPMC in quality of observers. "

This means that Incubator PMC members that are *not* involved in the 
project, hence ones that do not really wish to actively participate, do 
not have to vote on issues that they don't care about *unless* they feel 
it necessary.

> (*in some rare cases technical discussions might happen on some PMC list
> in order to avoid public disclosure of a sensitive topic -- eg. security
> vulnerabilities. In general, however, technical discussions should always
> stay on the development list.)
>>The status update occurs on the PPMC list. Thus, the notion of reporting 
>>to the "main Incubator PMC" is a non-issue, as all Incubator PMC members 
>>are also on the PPMC.
> I also disagree with this. The purpose of the report is to present
> a condensed view of the happenings within a project so that others
> can see how things are going. If they are only posted to the PPMC list,
> then who will be the audience? These reports should be going to

Ok, it makes sense. I would suggest that the dev and ppmc lists get a 
chance to see it before it's posting there, but I wouldn't make it a 
rule for now.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message