incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Cabrera <>
Subject Re: If I were king of the forest
Date Wed, 08 May 2013 18:36:41 GMT

On May 8, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Chip Childers <> wrote:

> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:00:14AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>> On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Eric Johnson <> wrote:
>>> One last suggested refinement:
>>> At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the third
is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as one of the mentors looking
to shed their responsibilities. One point that has come out of the discussion has been a lack
of clear responsibility. Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as
backup for the other.
>> Yes, this was what I was thinking as well.  Two active mentors, maybe one or two
inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves inactive the active mentor know
not to assume anything of them.
> I may be incorrect in my understanding of the official ASF policy here
> [1], but WRT a release, doesn't it require at least 3 +1 votes of the
> appropriate PMC (in the case of podlings, the IPMC)?  If the mentors
> were limited to 2 within the podlings, then would that leave all podling
> in a position of having to get a third +1 from the IPMC?
> In some cases, podlings have enough active mentors that this whole
> thread doesn't apply (clearly the discussion is about areas where there
> are problems).  My concern would be making it harder for *well
> functioning* podlings / mentors to get through releases.

We're the IPMC, we can change the rules if we need to.

I don't see how my proposal will change things for well functioning podlings with active mentors,
but I do agree that we should not mess with the mojo of successful podlings.


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

View raw message