incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Date Wed, 30 May 2007 13:44:30 GMT
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, why does a  
> mentor have to send the account setup to root? Why can't the mail  
> to root just contain a link to the vote result with 3 PMC members  
> on it from the general list?

This is a question that I believe only infrastructure can answer. The  
issue is that right now, "root" has to respond only to emails from  
PMC chairs, and it's easy to verify that it's really the PMC chair  
sending the request.

> Some PMC members have the view that any PPMC member should be able  
> to send the account setup to root to learn the system, others say  
> it has to be a mentor. Cliff has kindly taken care of most of these  
> mail for us so far so this is more theoretical, however having  
> clarity on this in the document would also be good as I have  
> wondered about the reasoning 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.

If anyone can send the request, then "root" has to do more work by  
verifying the vote thread, following the link provided in 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.

> 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 binding. If the vote  
>> is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a  
>> committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an  
>> Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the  
>> documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both the  
>> Incubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to  
>> root.
>> I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to  
>> reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC.
>> Craig
>> On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>>> I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer's
>>>> contributions.
>>> +1 != +0
>>>> I always thought (and the documentation at
>>>> says PPMC votes are
>>>> binding.
>>> It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong.  Notice that  
>>> elsewhere it
>>> properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong  
>>> were PMC to
>>> which someone added (P).  Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC.   
>>> There is
>>> only one PMC: the Incubator PMC.
>>> I don't know how to say this more clearly.  The PPMC is not a  
>>> recognized
>>> entity in the ASF Bylaws.  The PMC is the legal entity, and only  
>>> PMC votes
>>> count in any ASF project.  PPMC members should still vote, as can  
>>> other
>>> members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes  
>>> are binding.
>>> This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works.
>>> It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta  
>>> Committer who
>>> isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count.  For  
>>> years
>>> people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta  
>>> is the
>>> source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects  
>>> that didn't go
>>> through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.
>>>> the documentation link above is out of date.
>>> It was never "in date".  It is wrong, regardless of date.
>>>     --- Noel
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System 
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
408 276-5638
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message