On 12/22/05, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > >> I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had > >> the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a > >> proposed project, acceptance. > > > > You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets > > that role, > > I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that > > right. > > > > Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator: > > RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is > responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products > submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be > it further > > There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example, > that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That > is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's > the Incubator which granted that "power" to the PMCs, and > we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us > more control over that which we are charged with in the > first place :)
the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to a failure of oversight has personal consequences. i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run. - robert
