Hi Niclas,There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to become a committer. This would have to be after the private votes are done and before the public vote. So after the nominee accepts, they suddenly see a [vote] thread regarding their candidacy on the dev list and wonder what *that* is about.
I think a public "welcome to the new committer" would be sufficient "feel good" instead of the phony public vote.
Craig On May 30, 2007, at 6:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 20:59, Davanum Srinivas wrote:I like the second option. thanks for bringing this up.I don't. It assumes that the [Discuss] thread was all dandy. If not, then the vote passes in public and the Incubator PMC will become the 'bad guys whodoesn't let X in'.Looking at ASF at large, one of the more common ways of committer voting is;1. [Discuss] on private@ 2. [Vote] on private@ 3. [Vote] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]How about teaching that is the process, we inject one extra step for podlingsfor legal reasons (if they now exist)? 1. [Discuss] on [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. [Vote] on [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. [Vote] on [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. [Vote] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]IMHO, IPMC members only need to browse the Discuss & Vote threads a couple of minutes to give the heads-up. And if the mentors don't cry "No" this shouldbe a swift exercise. Cheers NiclasOn 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I'd like to open the discussion on the "best practice" referred to bythe guides/ppmc because I'm not convinced that best practice for a TLP is best practice for the incubator.The reason is that PPMC votes have no legal status. And incubator PMCmembers generally don't track podlings closely. So it's difficult to get incubator PMC members to vote for new committers. But incubator PMC members should be very good at looking at PPMC processes and voting based on the PPMC vote process. 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. So IMHO, best practice for podlings is to hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMC private list, followed by a [VOTE] on the PPMC private list, and then a formal [VOTE] on the private incubator PMC list with references to the discussion and vote of the PPMC. [Only the final vote is binding.] Alternatively, hold a [DISCUSS] Joe Bleau for committer on the PPMCprivate list, followed by a [VOTE] on the dev list, and then a formal[VOTE] on the incubator list with references to the discussion and vote of the community.This way, the incubator PMC can see that the PPMC "gets" the Apache Way.Craig On May 30, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:Having seen this identical discussion at least half a dozen times, I've committed changes to the guides/ppmc document removing the distracting (P) from the discussion on new committers. The new text says Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding. If the vote is positive, and the contributor accepts the responsibility of a committer for the project, the contributor formally becomes an Apache committer. An Incubator PMC member should then follow the documented procedures to complete the process, and CC both theIncubator PMC and the PPMC when sending the necessary e-mails to root.I included the redundant "Incubator" in "Incubator PMC" simply to reinforce Noel's comment that PMC means Incubator PMC. Craig On May 29, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:Yoav Shapira wrote:I voted +0, not having had time to review the proposed committer'scontributions.+1 != +0I always thought (and the documentation at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are binding.It says (P), and the (P) clearly does not belong. Notice that elsewhere it properly says PPMC, with no (), and the places that are wrong were PMC to which someone added (P). Likewise "IPMC" should simply be PMC. There is only one PMC: the Incubator PMC. I don't know how to say this more clearly. The PPMC is not a recognized entity in the ASF Bylaws. The PMC is the legal entity, and only PMC votes count in any ASF project. PPMC members should still vote, as can other members of the community, but as a legal matter, only PMC votes are binding. This is not Incubator policy, it is how the ASF works. It is the same in Jakarta, for example, where any Jakarta Committer who isn't on the PMC can vote, but only Jakarta PMC votes count. For years people didn't understand this, but please understand that Jakarta is the source of many of the wrong and bad practices in ASF projects that didn't go through either the HTTP Server project or the Incubator.the documentation link above is out of date.It was never "in date". It is wrong, regardless of date. --- Noel------------------------------------------------------------------ ---To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Craig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ products/jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!Craig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ products/jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!-- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Russell DB PMC, OpenJPA PMC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://db.apache.org/jdo
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
