incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2015 04:04:57 GMT
If that were true then the project would not be operating as an Apache project which requires
that all community members have a voice. Graduation requires the project be operating as an
Apache project.

In such a project there is a difference between a binding vote and a non-binding vote only
in the legal aspects of the foundation. From a community perspective any valid opinion should
be supported by those with binding vote.

Sent from my Windows Phone
From: John D. Ament<>
Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2015 7:50 PM
Cc: Bertrand Delacretaz<>; Sam Ruby<>;<>
Subject: RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

I may be taking a more cynical interpretation, but when I see that three
votes from members are required that means that all other votes don't
On Mar 2, 2015 10:45 PM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <> wrote:

> Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for
> appropriate projects. The problem you highlight is the one that concerns me
> most about this proposal. However, if we select pTLP candidates carefully
> there should be no problem.
> Also note that you are incorrect in saying you will never get a binding
> vote. Earn merit in the community and get yourself invited into the PMC and
> you have a binding vote.
> Ross
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: John D. Ament<>
> Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2015 7:33 PM
> To:<>;
> Bertrand Delacretaz<>; Sam Ruby<mailto:
> Cc: Apache Board<>
> Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
> I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would
> never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP.
> We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1
> current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC.
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
><>> wrote:
> How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide?
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: John D. Ament<<mailto:
> Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2015 6:56 PM
> To:<
> ><<>>;
> Bertrand Delacretaz<<mailto:
>>>; Sam Ruby<<mailto:
> Cc: Apache Board<<>>
> Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
> Roman,
> I don't think much is missing.  One of my concerns with all of these
> proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in
> how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate.  For someone like me,
> I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC.
> From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three
> existing Apache members.  Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation
> where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional
> member.  While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone
> of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot
> ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining.
> This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed
> by an existing member.  I can see this approach not helping foster external
> groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly
> willing to help foster that community.
> I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor
> projects.  So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to
> seeing the results.
> John
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik <<mailto:
>>> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > since a few board members requested a detailed document
> > outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this:
> >
> > action?pageId=51812862
> > which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale
> > is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered
> > good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level
> > of standard would be unfair.
> >
> > At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as
> > wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request
> > attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of
> > a document to be available.
> >
> > Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit
> > the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can
> > give you karma, though).
> >
> > I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy
> > in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more
> > time to join ASF as a pTLP project.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:<mailto:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> <>
> >
> >

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