incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Deepal jayasinghe <>
Subject Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Date Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:04:40 GMT
The Apache way is *"community over code"*, as a healthy community we
should encourage community growth. IMO I do not consider adding a new
member to the initial committer list as a big change to the proposal.  
In fact, now I believe if we had a separate VOTE for him, we will not
have this much traffic in this thread.

> It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
> on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
> I note that this change is different to the trademark promise made
> earlier since that one had been agreed in the discuss thread. That
> change was merely bringing the proposal into line with the discussion.
> This change was discussed after the vote had been called, which is
> quite different.
> I can also understand the concern that there is a potential for a
> "slippery slope" here (although I will note this is not the first time
> proposals have been tweaked during a vote - which should just be a
> formality since consensus is gauged through discussion).
> I am disappointed that following (what appears to be) unwritten rules
> to the letter rather than in the spirit of community development is
> more important to the IPMC members who have spoken, but I have to
> accept the majority opinion.
> I consider my wrists well and truly slapped and appreciate that nobody
> has gone so far as to veto the vote.
> I trust someone who believes this is a fixed rule rather than a
> social-norm by which we are guided will now go and document it
> appropriately in [2] (see ISSUE 09 [1]).
> (I keep wanting to delete that last sentence as it feels like a
> parting shot - it's not meant that way, it is an important point.
> I don't agree with this new rule, but I do appear to be in the minority. In
> an attempt to prove it's not a parting shot I've make the change
> myself in r866129:
> Index: content/incubation/Process_Description.html
> ===================================================================
> --- content/incubation/Process_Description.html
> (.../production/incubator)  (revision 866128)
> +++ content/incubation/Process_Description.html
> (.../staging/incubator/trunk)   (revision 866128)
> @@ -231,6 +231,8 @@
>  getting feedback about what is actually happening. The Sponsor will
>  typically take about 7-10 days before announcing a vote result.
>  </p>
> +<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
> +          No further changes are accepted.</p>
>  <p>If that vote is affirmative, the Sponsor (unless the Sponsor is
>            already the Incubator PMC) will propose to the
> )
> Ross
> [1]
> [2]
> On 18 June 2013 17:12, Daniel Shahaf <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> However, in this specific case the social norm *should* be to allow the
>>> change to proceed - that's the most efficient process.
>> Modifying a vote that has started is a slippery slope.  (The same is true for
>> reusing version numbers: ANY change to something that has been tagged must get
>> a new version number - no matter how small the change may be.)  One solution is
>> to restart the vote.  Another is to run a parallel vote for the delta/amendment.
>> Concretely, can't you just start a thread on private@ saying "The would-be-PPMC
>> has consensus on inviting X as a committer"?  This would allow you to invite X
>> to be a committer shortly after the original vote ends.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message