incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: an experiment
Date Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:29:55 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Donald Woods <>
> To:
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:19:03 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
> On 8/11/10 1:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > So.  Following some  advice given to me by Sam Ruby,
> > I'd like to start experimenting with  different organizational
> > and procedural approaches to the projects I  participate in
> > here.  What I want to do is to see how far I can  push
> > the envelope on the whole notion of empowerment and 
> >  self-governance in an incubating project, following the
> > lessons I've  learned from httpd's treatment of the subprojects
> > it happens to be  responsible for.
> > 
> > The first idea should be fairly  straightforward: that for
> > the projects I participate in (so far thrift  and sis), that
> > the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making  process
> > for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the  clock
> > to May 1, 2007 on guides/ppmc.html.
> How about requiring at  least one mentor on the vote, so there is still
> some oversight?

I'm actually not in favor of that idea because relatively few
mentors are active developers in their projects (I'm certainly
in that category).  Part of what I'm trying to teach is that
self-governance requires active participants to be making the
critical decisions. 

OTOH I would be perfectly OK with the idea that a mentor must
file the account request, or more simply must submit an ACK request
regarding the vote to either general@incubator or private@incubator.
> > 
> > The second idea is more controversial: to hold IPMC votes to
> >  admit all significant committers to those projects to the IPMC
> >  itself.  The purpose of this concept is to allow those who
> > best  know the codebase to provide IPMC oversight over it, 
> > especially as it  pertains to releases.
> Would still like this to be an opt-in, where any  existing PMC member
> interested in helping with the Incubator could request  membership and be
> added after 72 hours (expanding ASF member rules to apply  to all PMC
> members.)

Are you referring to ASF members here?  PMC members themselves who
are not ASF members must be voted in by the IPMC to gain IPMC membership.
ASF members interested in IPMC membership need only notify the chair
of their intentions.  I don't expect any of that to change with what
I'm proposing.

>  For committers (non-PMC members), I'd want an  existing IPMC
> or PMC member nominate the person to the IPMC and require a  72hr lazy
> consensus, since IPMC members are expected to mentor and teach  new
> podlings about the Apache way.

I would expect a more formal process of consensus voting for IPMC
membership in the case of a podling committer, ie 3 +1's and no
vetoes.  The vote would be held on private@incubator naturally.


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

View raw message