incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <>
Subject Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Date Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:18:11 GMT

> Only because IPMC said it must provide such votes.
Can you provide a reference to that? I realise that may be hard to do so given it was so long

I searched and was unable to find where that happened in the the list history. The earliest
reference I could find was this [1] (in 2004), and this a little later [3] refers to the incubator
release process. It certainly seems that the current situation is not new e.g. [3] (2004)
and [4] (2003). The Wayback Machine is a little more helpful and gives this in 2002 [5] which
states incubating communities need to follow Apache voting rules, and this page [6] says that
3 +1 binding votes are required for releases. It seems that PPMC concept comes in a little
later [4] (which is quite an interesting thread). From what I can see, 3+1 binding votes was
either a community norm when the IPMC was founded (in 2002) or was introduced very shortly
after (in 2003) and has continued to be used since then.

A lot of people have not been around that long and don’t know the history of this (including

The current voting process is the same as what any other TLP does and follows the foundation
policy on voting on releases [4]

> Others disagree, and want an answer from Legal. Roman seems amenable, if the IPMC has
the will to
> formally ask.

The question has already been asked and an answer given deepening on how you view podling
releases. It might need some further discussion.

> But even if you ignore the age, a PMC was constructed by the Board with the
> *duty* to onboard new groups.

Consider seriously for a moment if another TLP project just announced that anyone's vote was
binding, not only PMC members. How would the Board view that? Do the ASF bylaws even allow



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

View raw message