incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: PPMC to IPMC
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:46:57 GMT

> From: Marvin Humphrey <>
>To: Joe Schaefer <> 
>Cc: "" <> 
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:28 PM
>Subject: Re: PPMC to IPMC
>On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:41:32PM -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Taking a larger interest beyond a podling is nice but not required for IPMC
>> membership.
>+1, not a requirement.
>> We certainly don't expect members to do anything like that, so why should we
>> expect it of non-members?
>Let's separate Incubator policy from my advice to Karl and other potential
>IPMC aspirants.
>Regarding Incubator policy, it may be useful to do something as liberal as
>placing PPMC members on the IPMC as soon as we think they can be trusted with
>a binding vote for their own podling releases.  That will also give them a
>binding vote on other IPMC issues, but will it cause problems?  I dunno.

Trust me.  Long experience with this issue tells me it won't cause any problems.
People generally stay out of situations they are not familiar with, and adults
typically recuse themselves from voting on things where there's an obvious
conflict of interest going on.

>We've talked about shrinking the IPMC to a core of people who really know and
>care about the Incubator, and this goes the opposite direction -- but it does
>solve some difficult problems without compromising the ASF's legal chain of
>authority over releases.

The best kind of oversight is COMPETENT oversight.  People who understand
the policy, intend to respect it, and are actually familiar with the podling's
software are in the best position to cast binding votes over it.

>For individuals who want to be on the IPMC, you will probably get noticed
>faster if you contribute to the Incubator as an instititution -- and even
>better, you will gain valuable experience regarding community, legal policies
>and how the ASF works which will help your podling succeed over the long haul.
>So I think it is in the interest of potential candidates to get involved, even
>if the IPMC states that it's not a requirement.

Again, very nice, but not at all necessary.  Random people running around sticking
their fingers in various holes in our oversight woes isn't conducive to sound process.
We aim for competent oversight over our podlings, and if there aren't enough
mentors available to provide that, let's start sourcing the podling's committers.

Preferably starting with RM's who have already successfully managed to release

It's not exactly rocket science.

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

View raw message