incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2019 16:25:53 GMT
Greg,

thank you for taking the time to elaborate. I'm afraid I still don't
understand.

I understand that this is how it's currently set up. But these are our
rules, we can change them. There's no law involved here, right?

The way I see it: One problem we're trying to solve is too many people in
the Incubator IPMC, and if there are lots of ASF members in the IPMC just
so they can vote on new podlings let's make a new rule that members are
allowed to vote on it without joining the IPMC. Joining is just an
administrative process the way it is set up now. There's no merit involved
(other than the merit that needs to be proven to become a member in the
first place).

But there's a good chance I still misunderstand.

Cheers,
Lars

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:20 PM Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:04 AM Lars Francke <lars.francke@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:05 PM Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:00 AM Lars Francke <lars.francke@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >...
> > >
> > > > As far as I know every member can become IPMC member. So if we change
> > the
> > > > rules that every member vote is binding (whether or not they are in
> the
> > > > IPMC) people wouldn't need to join the club.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The legal structure passes through the IPMC. Members are irrelevant in
> > this
> > > scenario.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand. But either way I don't believe members are
> > irrelevant. Looking at the Incubator site[1] it says "Foundation members
> > may willingly join the IPMC at any time, [...]" and if they do only to
> vote
> > but not to participate in any other way then that would be one way to
> > reduce membership (by allowing them to vote without being IPMC members)
> >
> > Maybe you can rephrase your comment for me? I may misunderstand.
> >
>
> The legal structure of the Foundation is built upon oversight from the
> Board, to the PMCs, to the communities. The individuals who reside within
> the IPMC are ... individuals.
>
> If Members happen to be individuals that are participating within the IPMC,
> that is wholly orthogonal to everything constructed. Yes, the IPMC gives
> them preferential treatment to *join* the IPMC, but they are peers, just
> like every other person in the community.
>
> The legal structure is built upon a PMC providing (3) +1 votes on a
> release. To be clear: PMC Members. Those with responsibility around the
> community producing the release.
>
> Foundation Members have zero say in any of the technical communities. None.
> They must earn their merit, and join a PMC to get a binding vote. Their
> Membership in the Foundation does not give them any privilege. So, no... a
> Foundation Member should not get a privileged vote within the Incubator
> PMC.
>
> Expand it more broadly: the Board is the representative group of the
> Members. They completely and actively shun any attempt to direct/vote in
> the technical communities. There are two very distinct groups: those in the
> technical communities, and those assisting with the Foundation's
> administrative side. Members are in the latter, and they should not get a
> vote in Incubator/podling releases. They must *join* the technical
> community, via merit, to be afforded that right.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

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