(D) will still require 2 more IPMC vote? (E) will be like (B) in that it will need mentors or other IPMC to vote in podling dev@?
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:04 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > One of the incubator pain points is the double voting on releases first by > the podling and then by the IPMC. > > Historically there been a lot of discussion about this and a couple of > proposals to try and change it, but none have been accepted. There have > been proposals on alternative ways to vote and to ask for guidances which > have been accepted, but podlings don’t seem to take these options up. I’m > hoping the recent DISCLAIMER-WIP is one that is used more by podlings, and > go some way to helping podling get releases out, but time will tell. > > When consider what to do about this, please keep this in mind: > 1. Only PMC members can have binding votes on releases (it’s in our > bylaws) so a minimum of 3 IPMC votes are require to make a release. > 2. Podlings are not TLP and don’t have a PMC and PPMC members votes are > not binding on releases. > 3. The IPMC picks up some serious issues in (about 1 in 5) releases by > checking this way. This is mostly, but not always, on the early releases. > > So option (A) would be to get the Bylaws changed and treat podlings as > TLPs. > > Another option (B) is to get all mentors to vote on every release. We’ve > tried this via various means and it seems only a couple of podlings can > manage this. > > One (perhaps not carefully considered) option (C) would be to vote in all > PPMC members as IPMC and make PPMC members IPMC members when projects are > first created rather than incubator committers. If we did this we could > optionally gate graduation on a review of a podlings releases but that may > be unpopular. There have also been complaints in the past that he IPMC is > too large, so increasing the IPMC size this way may also not be popular. > > A variation on (C) let call it option (D) would be to vote in podling > release mangers into the IPMC after they have done a number of releases > along with podling committers that provide good feedback on a number of > release candidates. That way when starting out a podling is likely to need > the IPMC help, but one they have a few releases under their belts they will > have enough IPMC votes without having to reply on mentors or other IPMC > members. It would also encourage more careful voting on releases, If you > just go +1 with giving some detail you’re not going to be voted into the > IPMC. This wouldn't require any bylaws or policy change, we could just go > ahead and do it. It would require the mentors help in identifying good > candidates. > > One further idea I have is (E) is that if a podling does have 3 IPMC votes > on it dev list and are using the DISCLAIMER-WIP disclaimer, they can just > notify the IPMC that they are making a release, the IPMC can review it and > and any issues or feedback found can incorporated into the next release or > before graduation as per [1]. This may mean that there’s a risk that a > release has to be taken down and redone - (see issues that are blockers in > that ticket), but most issues found over the notification it would be > business as usual. > > So IMO options (A) and (C) above seem unlikely to happen, and (B) isn’t > really working, but option (D) combined with (E) along with the recent > DISCLAIMER-WIP I think could would improve the situation. > > Does anyone have any other ideas they care to share? > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL/issues/LEGAL-469 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
