Noel, It has been a while since I posted this and the conversation has gone cold. I'd like to get some consensus on what the PPMC's role is so that we can update the documentation.
See embedded comments below. On 11/04/07, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cliff Schmidt wrote: > > > 1. Only IPMC members (e.g. mentors) should send root requests for new > > podling committers. > > 2. A podling committer vote requires three IPMC +1s to be approved > > (ideally the mentors, assuming the project still has three mentors). > > > This [is] not how I read what we have documented at > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html > > Then we need to fix the documentation. > > > From Noel's comments, it sounds like those "(P)"s should be removed > > from the above sentence. > > The PPMC has no standing within the ASF. It is a useful structure for the > Incubator, but the only binding votes on a PPMC are those of the Incubator > PMC members casting them. The PMC is the recognized entity within the ASF > structure responsible for the management of a project, and we need to ensure > that decisions go through the PMC in order to maintain that role. Why do > you think that I keep pushing the minimum of three (active) Mentors > recommendation?
So should the PPMC's role be to organise, select and perform the vote and then forward the vote to general@ for ratification that we have performed the process correctly. At which point the IPMC takes control of the vote such that when three IPMC memebers have voted (Which may have already occured IF the podlings mentors have voted) they create the account requests and send them to root@ copying the <podling>-private@ list. This would then give a bigger pool of recognized people that could pickup the completed votes and create the account requests. Alternatively the IPMC could then notifiy the podling-private list that their vote was successfull so that the PPMC could create the account request (Learning that process) and send it to the IPMC for forwarding to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That way the IPMC gets to over see the PPMCs ensuring they are moving towards the "Apache Way" and root@ only gets emails from people that they know have the right to request the action. Thoughts?
> > I honestly don't know if this is a case of things evolving rules, or > > different IPMC members thinking they agreed with each other and not > > realizing they had different ideas, or (equally likely) that I knew > > the "right way" to do this long ago and have since lost my mind. > > Take your pick. :-P > > > I have chosen to handle this by offering my IPMC/mentor vote to > > the three qpid votes that were summarized on this list last month. > > > I can also do the sending of the root requests when there are two > > other +1 IPMC votes. > > That's fine. My comment to Martin Ritchie was entirely procedural, and not > intended to be any sort of slap. I, too, am favorably disposed towards QPid > (questions about the specification process aside). If you don't have > sufficient votes, let me know, and I will review the archives in order to > determine my own vote. > > --- Noel
I didn't take the comments as a slap of any sort. It is just good to clear up the procedural work. I would have thought that the incubation documenation would have been more RC than beta as it appears in places but I understand the organic process that is going on here. :) -- Martin Ritchie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
