incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <>
Subject Re: an experiment
Date Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:28:17 GMT

My personal opinion (and i am hoping!) was that such individuals from ppmc's who end up in
ipmc would help build bridges 
between podlings and will help get lessons learned (when any ppmc has issues/problems/roadblocks)
back to their ppmc. 
This is one area where i've seen people struggle, folks from different projects learning the
same lessons the hard way.

I am not too worried about "binding" vote one podling ppmc member have over another podling's
release. the "binding" is 
for me a legal thing (as in we need 3 binding ipmc votes for a release).

-- dims

On 08/11/2010 06:16 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Joe Schaefer<>  wrote:
>> 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.
> Without some more explanation I'm not that convinced about doing that.
> The main purpose of the IPMC is to vote on the graduation of
> poddlings, why should some random ASF poddling newbie get a binding
> vote on the graduation of _any_ poddling?
> I'm guessing the motivation for this proposal is not to give poddling
> committers binding votes on other poddling graduations but to give
> them binding votes on their own poddling activities, and that i agree
> with. The things they need binding votes on is their committer votes,
> ppmc votes (they already have that), and release votes - lets just
> give them those.
>     ...ant
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message