incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <>
Subject RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Date Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:46:52 GMT
Leo Simons wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> >  - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> >  - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> >  - The PPMC elects Committers

> I would say this is part of a direction where more authority is
> delegated from PMC to mentors.

Yes, but not nearly the same as the Board delegating to the PMC.  The
Mentors are merely PMC members who are actively involved in that community.

> *) who constitute mentors for a project is not always properly
>    accounted during the life of the project.

To a specific extent, who cares, other than to maintain oversight?  For
this, we're talking about voting, and very PMC member has an equal vote on
every single project within the Incubator.

> *) this makes it more important that mentors have some amount of
> experience at the incubator (instead of "just" being valued ASF
> members).

I don't vote for ASF Membership unless I believe that the person would be an
asset to the Incubator.  I can't speak for anyone else.  Feel free to start
naming ASF Members whom you don't think would be good Mentors.  Bring
asbestos longjohns.  ;-)  Not that I disagree with you on the potential, but
that they are ASF Members, and we really should have multiple Mentors to at
least hedge against your concern.

> *) in the case of existing projects coming in, "elects additional
> PPMC members" really does feel wrong as a sentence. Even if its quite
> possible for the mentors to elect the PPMC immediately, it doesn't
> convey the right feeling.

Why not?  What is the psychological response that you have to the mechanism?

> I like the direction, but I don't like the wording, and I would like
> to see just a little more detail to make things less ambiguous.

Please feel free to elaborate on improvements.  For one, it seems that
people would like to have a lot more policy statement (and examples)
accompany the process, illustrating how we would and would not want the
process practiced.

> I don't like how you call a vote a few hours after someone expresses
> a concern. I share Justin's (and Martijn's) concern and I don't think
> you fully addressed it at all.

I didn't call a vote; I made note of what already existed.  So many people
had *already* posted votes that I just wanted to gather them.  You'll note
that I also started a concurrent thread for discussion.  And I'm hardly in a
rush to count votes.  As I said, I was even planning to go back into the
archives to look for other objections, not just Justin's, although from the
looks of it, others have taken care of that.

	--- Noel

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

View raw message