incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <>
Subject Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases
Date Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:15:34 GMT

It’s a pity that the people who are strongly for this position, don’t seem to actually
want to be involved in helping out, but just want to discuss and tell the people actually
doing the work are going the wrong way about this. :-)

> Be honest now. We are not talking a TLP release. This is "some code" from a
> podling. It may have stuff in it that would make a Director stroke out
> (maybe not Ted, it seems :p ) ... Why does the IPMC feel a need to put its
> "imprimatur" on the release? And who/when said they must? And let's say we
> can dig that up from the past ... why not remove/relax it?

I'st a release by the incubator PMC and thus needs to follow ASF policies, do you consider
the incubator a TLP or not? As to why was it originally done this way, that’s before my
time so I don’t actually know. Perhaps someone else can find or comment on that.

> It seems there is some consensus that podling releases are getting jammed
> up by IPMC rules.

No exactly a) release policy is not IPMC rules. b) The large majority of releases have no
issues. c) Where a -1 happens it for a good reason.

> Assuming that is true, then why not question the vote process itself?

Sure but that is side tracking this thread which is on the actual proposal to the board.

> Let's say at least ONE of a podling's Mentors MUST give a +1. Then the PPMC
> gets at least (2) more, majority blah blah.

PPMC votes are not binding on releases, again exactly why it was set up this way I do not
know, but I guess it because they are just learning about the process and not a "full citizen”
yet. You need 3 + 1 binding votes from the PMC and more +1s than -1s to make a release.

> Wouldn't that be acceptable?

I have no idea, it probably break several ASF bylaws / policies which are not set by the IPMC
and it don’t follow what TLP projects do. I’m fairly sure that the IPMC can't ignore those
policies without permission from the board. Hence why this proposal exists.

> What other way? Link? Publicity for this?

See [1], there was a large amount of discussion about this onlist and it was in a recent board
report, so the mentors should be aware of it. There was also an alternative voting process
put forward 3 or 4 years ago. 


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

View raw message