incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <>
Subject Re: incubator, exit and publication
Date Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:04:21 GMT

robert burrell donkin wrote:

> (sorry stephen i should have probably been clearer.)
> i was looking for an official(ish) statement from roy or one of the 
> other senior (board level) ASF folks.
> (i'm happy to take active steps to ensure that ASF policy is enforced 
> by the jakarta pmc - and any other project's i'm involved with - but 
> only if i'm confident that i understand completely the policy and know 
> that the policy comes from the ASF.)

It has been probaly more than a year since I read the board minutes 
concerning the chartering of the Jakarta PMC. From memory is much that 
same content as recent PMC charters in that the Jakarta PMC is charged 
with responsibility for setting its own policies and procedures. As 
such, the starting point in understanding the applicable procedures is 
the qualification of which policies and procedures have been formally 
(or informally) established by the Jakarta PMC. 

 From that point you have an idea what it is that you aim to enforce.


> - robert
> On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 01:15 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 08:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>> A release requires 3 +1 and a majority of those voting, wherein
>>>> the only people allowed to vote are the PMC responsible for that
>>>> code.  In other words, the usual rules apply -- it is simply harder
>>>> to get the votes.
>>> just to make sure that i understand the general ASF policy correctly 
>>> (hopefully people will correct any misunderstandings):
>>> 1. does this mean a vote of the pmc which is responsible for the 
>>> code (rather than a vote of committers for that code where only pmc 
>>> members have binding votes)? or can the actual mechanics of the vote 
>>> vary (per project) provided that the pmc the ultimate authority 
>>> approving the release?
>> The Board typically creates a PMC under a particular scope and 
>> charters that PMC with a set of actions - one of these it to 
>> establish the rules (policies and procedures) that it will operate 
>> under.  As such a PMC is for all intensive purposes is free to 
>> establish any rules it sees fit. However, as you imply - there are 
>> general ASF policies - in fact there are multiple "general ASF 
>> Policies". My understanding is that the committers to project vote on 
>> a release plan (the voice of the community)
>>  - a release manager, identified in the release plan undertakes the 
>> work of release preparation.  On completion, it is the PMC that 
>> endorces publication of release artifacts under a majority vote with 
>> a quorum of 3.
>>   Its a process I like because it rooted in a community decision.
>>> 2. does this apply to all releases (alphas, beta, and so on) or just 
>>> to full (stable) releases?
>> My understanding is that this is applicable to all.  For reference - 
>> I make a distinction between snapshot releases - typically 
>> incorporating some important new feature as distinct from offical 
>> Apache releases.  I will normally publish a snapshot release on 
>> non-Apache hardware - whereas with PMC published content I try to 
>> follow Apache distribution rules/guidelines as best as possible.
>> Stephen.
>> -- 
>> Stephen J. McConnell
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


Stephen J. McConnell

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

View raw message