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: Incubator new committer redux
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:04:15 GMT

On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:10 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote:

> Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM> writes:
>> The thread has died down with no consensus, so I'm going to try  
>> again.
> I apologize for being absent from these threads for the last month.
> Life got busy and one of the things that got dropped was the incubator
> general list.
> I don't want to rehash everything that's been discussed before, but
> here's my opinions as an IPMC member:
> I'd prefer that the decision making stays close to the PPMC.  If we
> need the IPMC to check off on PPMC decisions, fine.  That should be
> possible via the mentors.  But let's not make this any more
> bureaucratic than necessary.

I agree that the Incubator should groom the PPMC toward self- 
governance. But that doesn't mean that the Incubator PMC can avoid  
its responsibilities.

> Thus I'm in favor of only ONE vote.

That's why I proposed that a vote occur simultaneously on both  
private lists.
> Furthermore, I'm not completely convinced by Noel's argument that the
> PPMC is a figment of our imagination.  Sorry, Noel, don't mean to pick
> on you here. :-)

I can't claim to have read every document that pertains to this  
issue, but as far as the Board is concerned, PPMC's don't exist. They  
are a construction of the Incubator in accordance with the  
Incubator's charter to provide guidance to subprojects.

According to Apache Foundation how-it-works [1] which I'm assuming is  
normative, PMC members have the right to propose new committers. And  
the PMC as a whole is responsible for project governance, which  
includes new committers.

> My point is, if the IPMC choses to delegate committer voting
> responsibilities to PPMCs, then the PPMC votes are just as 'binding'
> as IPMC votes. AFAIK, there's no legal barrier for this to happen,
> only procedural ones.

The discussion here is on the process (procedure) to create new  
committers in the incubator while staying within the Incubator's  
charter within the Foundation's bylaws. Which means to me that the  
Incubator PMC must decide (vote) on new committers. I'm not convinced  
yet that the Incubator PMC can decide to let another group (PPMC)  
decide without voting to accept the other group's decision. I guess  
that's a bit of a legal question.

If we can pop the stack a few frames, the reason I'm pursuing this is  
that I've seen several examples over the past few months where PPMC  
votes were taken without the Mentors voting, the PPMC tried to get  
the new committer on board, root ignored the request, and a general  
melee occurred. Also from personal experience, a new project has no  
idea how to get a new committer on board. There seem to be as many  
opinions (conflicting) as Incubator PMC members.

I'm trying to avoid these kinds of issues in future.


> -- 
>   J Aaron Farr        [US] +1 724-964-4515
>     馮傑仁     [HK] +852 8123-7905
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Craig Russell

View raw message