incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial committer?
Date Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:34:39 GMT
On 18 June 2013 13:04, Tim Williams <> wrote:
> Another option is to discount votes prior to the last mutation.  Or,
> we add a wiki page that explains to new folks how the social norms can
> be overridden/bullied occasionally by headstrong, salty old-timers as
> they see fit...

Nice observation (and yes I am taking it in the fun sense I believe
you intend it). In the same veign I would say that it's time we
stopped the IPMC being ruled by the petty rules that have no value.
Let me explain..

You correctly refer to the grounds of this complaint as a social-norm.
I contest that this is an incorrect social norm that is being applied
as a rule. This is a symptom of ISSUE 03.

For me the social norm *should* be to allow things to progress
unhindered unless an action is non-reversible and potentially damaging
to the community.

I claim there is ZERO damage potential from this change.  Being a
committer brings no authority over release votes etc. It is up to the
Champion and mentors to guide the podling not the IPMC. Sure the IPMC
provides oversight, but they shouldn't be meddling unless the Champion
and Mentors are failing in their duties. I claim that a mentors duty
is to ensure podlings know how to be efficient and inclusive. That
includes knowing the difference between a potentially destructive
change and a constructive one.

I think you would be hard pushed to find any occasion where those
"headstrong, salty old-timers" would push a social norm which *needs*
to be applied in any given circumstance. There is a reason for that -
those salty old timers have seen most of these things before (and Tim,
you do realise you count as an old-timer, perhaps just not as salty as
me ;-)

If Sanjiva sought to reverse the agreed trademark change then I would
refuse and/or veto the vote. If I didn't then I'd expect someone else
in the IPMC to do so. However, in this specific case the social norm
*should* be to allow the change to proceed - that's the most efficient

If people want to adopt the inefficient process then fair enough,
someone inform me they will veto the vote unless we revert the change.
I'll comply with the rules if someone wants to insist. But this is a
discussion and I believe it's a waste of time.


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

View raw message