I also fully subscribe to the fact that we need to improve community diversity, that part is not red tape.
- Joe On 23 Jan 2013, at 22:19, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 January 2013 20:14, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 23.01.2013 20:45, Joe Dreimann wrote: >>> I don't know if it's allowed to combine both votes, but I'm in favour of >> it if it is. >> >> It's not. IPMC procedures dictate that the project community shall do >> everything necessary to produce an Apache release, then the IPMC will >> review those results by means of a second release vote. The idea being >> that as long as the project is a podling, it's learning the ropes. > > I was pretty sure that was the case but I happened to check here: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-incubator-release-vote > and noted that the wording "The conventional process is for the podling to > follow the usual Apache process" is quite suggestive that there is the > potential for something other than a conventional process. What confuses me > is that I felt that I knew it was definitely a two stage vote - did I get > that from a different source? Anyway, it seemed worth checking. > > >> >> Note that you wouldn't really gain much by going straight to the IPMC, >> since that vote thread is initialized with existing mentor votes. > > Well, I could try to argue advantages of only having the possibility of > just 72 hours of voting but I am not attempting to get a change in the > rules of the incubator so it is all moot. > > >>> In relation to the currently stalled voting, I'd like to propose Gary as >> a future IPMC member. Is there a process for this? >> >> As soon as he becomes an ASF member, he can also become an IPMC member. > > Sounds good for some far off future when Bloodhound is out of incubation. > If it were possible before then it would just seem like an abuse of the > position. > > > >>> Also or alternatively, is there a process for recruiting further >> mentors? Or is it "simply" a case of picking out potential mentors and >> asking them? >> >> It's more or less a matter of asking on the IPMC. Really, though, this >> project has enough active mentors, and relying on purely mentor votes >> sounds like "cheating". > > We already have enough IPMC members in principle but everyone has limited > time and I do not feel that it is right to insist on their vote. In > addition, while I want votes to be completed quickly I would also prefer > new people examining our release each time as this increases the chance of > spotting issues that we have missed. > > >> The proper way to avoid blocking on release votes is to graduate. :) >> Which I believe this community is ready for. Except for the community >> diversity issue, which you're all actively working on. >> >> I know it's frustrating, but even though I'm typically prepared to cut >> through a lot of red tape, I do feel that community diversity is >> important. And we all know exactly how diverse this particular community >> is. > I have no objection at all to that point of view. > > Cheers, > Gary
