incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)
Date Wed, 14 Aug 2019 15:50:00 GMT
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:24 AM Justin Mclean <> wrote:
> Hi,
> >> This is because of ASF bylaws i.e only PMC votes are binding on releases.
> >
> > That is not in the Bylaws. Stop making stuff up.
> That the way it’s been explained to me, several times, by experienced ASF people, that
only PMC votes are binding on releases and podlings are not mentioned in the ASF bylaws. Bylaw
wise see section 6.3.  But you're right, it would be more precise to say, it's a combination
of 6.3 of the bylaws of the ASF and the ASF's policy on voting on releases. [1]

Concrete suggestion, and an offer to help.

The ASF bylaws contain a lot of curiosities such as "each member of a
Project Management Committee shall serve on such committee for a
period of one year or until his or her successor is elected and
qualified or until his or her earlier resignation or removal", and
have been interpreted as the board is the one that determines
membership of PMCs.  Over time, that understanding has evolved, and is
currently implemented as a notification requirement[2].

Perhaps something similar can be made to work here.  Outline of
proposed process:

1) Concurrent with the start of a release vote by a PPMC, the IPMC is
to be notified that that vote is happening.  IPMC members are
encouraged to participate in the vote process on the PPMC list where
it is happening.

2) If anybody on the IPMC calls for a IPMC vote on the release before
the release occurs, then the release is blocked from happening until
this vote completes.

3) If the PPMC vote completes before there is a call for an IPMC vote,
the PPMC is free to make the release.

If such a process were in place, then the burden on the PPMC would be
normally be reduced to a single email per release.  Any IPMC member
could still -- for any reason -- call for a full IPMC vote, but my
sense is that that rarely will happen, and when it does, it will
generally be because there is a substantive issue that needs to be

If something like this were adopted by the IPMC, I will offer to help
update [1] to reflect that a different process applies during

- Sam Ruby


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

View raw message