On 30/05/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Yoav,
On May 30, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
>> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
>> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
>> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
>> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
>> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
>
> You're not the first one to have mentioned this approach. The thing
> that troubles me in this approach is that it distorts the meaning of
> +1/0/+1 votes with respect to committership.
>
> To me, a +1 vote on someone becoming a committer means I've personally
> reviewed the person's contributions (in terms of code, mailing list
> activity, etc.) in decent depth.
In a TLP PMC, I agree that a +1 should mean due diligence. PMC
members should be aware of contributions made by non-committers, and
the [DISCUSSION] before the [VOTE] should uncover any issues.
Which implies that due diligence really should be done during
[DISCUSS] and not wait until [VOTE].
>
> It does NOT mean I trust a bunch of other people to form my opinion
> for me. If, for whatever reason (for example a long holiday weekend),
> I haven't had a chance to look at the person's history, and a vote is
> required right now, a 0 seems more correct.
For a TLP PMC, I agree. But if there is some reason to delay the
vote, I don't have any trouble with an incubator PMC member
requesting an extension.
>
> Voting +1 explicitly without due diligence just so someone can reach a
> 3 +1 bar seems wrong to me. I guess there do exist other options,
> like asking for the vote to be open longer, saying explicitly that my
> +1 is for the process and the PMC without reviewing the person, and
> others. So maybe this is soluble and OK after all. I'm just thinking
> out loud here...
My main argument here is that the incubator is not a normal project.
The role of the incubator PMC is to guide podlings in the way of
Apache. And a big part of the way is learning how to grant commit
privileges to people who demonstrate to the project that they deserve
it.
I'm also very aware that most incubator PMC members simply don't have
the time to perform due diligence on requests for commit access for
podlings. So what I'm proposing allows incubator PMC members to
perform due diligence if they want to, or simply provide oversight of
the PPMC's actions on new committers.
Craig
>
> Yoav
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
What we need is two public lists that can be referenced so that the
incubator PMC can be satisfied that the podling is adhering to policy.
To adapt the suggestion by Niclas, I would say that step 3 be
performed on the public incubator list. As the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list is
also private a link cannot be made to the discussion so the three
active mentors of the project are the only ones that would be able to
approve the process carried out by the PPMC (Unless IPMC members can
browse the private lists). It is unlikely that this process would be
denied on the public list as the three mentors should have addressed
any problems on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. This of course requires that
all podlings have three mentors and that they are actively guiding
their podling, not an unreasonable request IMHO.
This would then give the PPMC authority to carry out the [Vote] on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list and a reference to include on the email to root
to verify that the work done on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is in line with 'The
Apache Way' even though it cannot be referenced.
1. [Discuss] on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. [Vote] on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. [Vote] [Process Approval] on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4. [Vote] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards
--
Martin Ritchie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
