incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Danny Angus <danny.an...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))
Date Mon, 04 Mar 2019 06:38:01 GMT
+1
If we trust mentors to ensure that their podling does the right thing as a
board committee this basically *is* a TLP and we wouldn't need an IPMC, but
if podlings need an IPMC then that must be because we allow for the
podlings to make missteps without bringing down the hammer.

Seems to me that simply explaining and teaching the principles that we are
upholding, the purpose of the roles, and the reasons why we chose this
mechanism to induct external projects would go a long way towards most of
the specific points I have seen raised so far.


D.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019, 6:19 am Greg Stein, <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ross Gardler <ross@gardler.me> wrote:
>
> > If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to
> > act on behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the
> > foundation.
> >
> >...
>
> > Podlings would only become full TLPs once they have demonstrated their
> > ability to do formal releases.
> >
>
> The above pair of concepts was offered in $priorCycle as "provisional TLPs"
> (pTLP). I believe the idea ended when Sam pointed out that if a pTLP is
> trusted, then why not just call it a TLP and trust it to label its releases
> appropriately? Thus, just create TLPs immediately for a "podling"
>
> [ I know Ross knows this; but for $others who may want to look at
> historical proposals, and compare/contrast to current discussion ... search
> for "pTLP" ]
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

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