incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:33:18 GMT
Julian,

I love the sentiment, but increasing the probability of mentor-only
approval by 10x is going to take a lot of something that we haven't had the
last five times we have tried to do this. The current system is a bit
frustrating, but having what amounts to mentors-at-large like Justin and a
few others is the only way we have right now to solve the problem of
inspecting releases (and helping to improve them).

And regarding two level of artifacts, we already have two kinds of podling
release artifacts. Those are releasable and defective (and thus not
releasable). That can't change since it is inherent in the release ground
rules and the fact that incoming podlings don't know the ground rules. The
only change is to make the defective artifacts provisionally releasable.



On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:56 AM Julian Feinauer <
j.feinauer@pragmaticminds.de> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> but instead of questioning the Bylaws or introducing two classes of
> artifacts I would rather try to improve mentor votes as this is something
> we can do incubator internal.
> And its always better to cure the cause then the symptoms : )
>
> Julian
>
> ´╗┐Am 12.08.19, 16:44 schrieb "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunning@gmail.com>:
>
>     On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:20 AM Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>     > ...
>     > This does NOT mean that the IPMC should be gatekeepers though...
> Just as
>     > PMC chairs are the "eyes and ears of the board", mentors are the
> "eyes and
>     > ears of the IPMC". The IPMC "vote" should be little more than a
> formality.
>     > IMO, if mentors are IPMC members, and there are at least 3 binding
> votes on
>     > the podling list, and the mentors are acting as IPMC members when
> they
>     > vote, then any other additional vote in the IPMC is not required...
> in
>     > essence, consider it like extending the vote for a lazy consensus,
> so to
>     > speak:
>     >
>     >
>     >    "The Apache Podling Foo has voted on releasing Foo 1.2.2 (url and
>     > pointers here). We have 3 (or more) binding votes from mentors. We
> are
>     > giving the IPMC and additional 72 hours to vote on said release."
>     >
>
>
>     This is good in theory, but as Justin has pointed out, 90% of podling
>     releases don't have enough mentor votes to follow this path.
>
>     The 10% that do have enough votes can easily follow this process.
>
>
>

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