incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: Podling new committer votes
Date Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:57:34 GMT
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:04 AM, ant elder <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Marvin Humphrey <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:24 AM, ant elder <> wrote:
>> > I've been away so a little slow in finishing this but i have just now made
>> > an update to the guide, see
>> >
>> I guess preserving the 2010 status quo was too much too much to ask for. :)
> Not sure what to make of that comment or the smiley at the end, i've
> tried to do this change as gently as possible, can you live with the
> current text or do you want an update?

Personally, I believe that removing the IPMC notification requirement when
adding podling committers is a positive change.  The new language is expansive
for my tastes -- the quarterly reporting requirement in particular seems out
of place -- but I can live with it.

It wasn't clear to me that there was a pressing need to change the policy,
hence my pining for the previous hard-won consensus from 2010.  But the die is

I am especially fond of the fact that the change harmonizes Incubator policy
with top-level ASF policy.  As we have talked about before, the more policy
that the Incubator can inherit rather than duplicate, the less material for us
to maintain and the better we will prepare our podlings for life after

>> Regarding Bertrand's request, I note that while the process for adding
>> committers has been relaxed, Mentor participation and IPMC notification are
>> still required for PPMC membership.  In my opinion, this is a fine scheme, as
>> it is consistent with how the Board requires notification for PMC membership
>> but not committership.
> I was tempted to update that too while editing the new committer text
> but as we hadn't discussed it just left it and had planned a new
> thread to discuss changing it. I can see the logic in having it work
> the same way as the board notifications of new PMC members, but that
> also feels a little unnecessary as the PPMC doesn't have any real
> standing or binding votes on much at all so i can also appreciate the
> Incubator PMC just leaving them to it and staying out of their way.

Podlings left to their own devices are sometimes sloppy about who is on the
PPMC and who is not.  That's bad, because uncertainty around the voting rolls
undermines the legitimacy of the voting mechanism.

Contentious votes are undesirable because they alienate the losing minority,
but in some cases they are the only way to resolve a disagreement.  A vote
result which is open to dispute because it's not clear whose votes are
binding makes it more difficult for the community to move on.

The current instructions for adding a PPMC member are not well-drafted because
they needlessly require double notification: once by forwarding the kickoff
VOTE email, and once after the candidate has accepted.  I would not support
removing IPMC notification altogether, but I think it would be great to
streamline away the duplicate requirement.

For TLPs, email notification to board@apache by the project VP provides a
canonical record establishing PMC membership (once the 72-hour window
expires).  If we are going to make a change, it seems to me that our
procedures with private@incubator and PPMC membership should mimic the Board's
procedures as closely as possible.

Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message