On 8/11/10 5:29 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:19:03 PM >> Subject: Re: an experiment >> >> >> >> On 8/11/10 1:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> So. Following some advice given to me by Sam Ruby, >>> I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational >>> and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in >>> here. What I want to do is to see how far I can push >>> the envelope on the whole notion of empowerment and >>> self-governance in an incubating project, following the >>> lessons I've learned from httpd's treatment of the subprojects >>> it happens to be responsible for. >>> >>> The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for >>> the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that >>> the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process >>> for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the clock >>> to May 1, 2007 on guides/ppmc.html. >> >> How about requiring at least one mentor on the vote, so there is still >> some oversight? > > I'm actually not in favor of that idea because relatively few > mentors are active developers in their projects (I'm certainly > in that category). Part of what I'm trying to teach is that > self-governance requires active participants to be making the > critical decisions. > > OTOH I would be perfectly OK with the idea that a mentor must > file the account request, or more simply must submit an ACK request > regarding the vote to either gene...@incubator or priv...@incubator. >
Sounds like a good solution for accounts, but I'd still like to see at least one mentor vote required on release artifacts, as the mentors agreed to step up and guide/teach podlings about the Apache Way, which includes using RAT and IANAL plugins to ensure license headers on the code and license/notice/disclaimer artifacts in the released artifacts. >>> >>> The second idea is more controversial: to hold IPMC votes to >>> admit all significant committers to those projects to the IPMC >>> itself. The purpose of this concept is to allow those who >>> best know the codebase to provide IPMC oversight over it, >>> especially as it pertains to releases. >> >> Would still like this to be an opt-in, where any existing PMC member >> interested in helping with the Incubator could request membership and be >> added after 72 hours (expanding ASF member rules to apply to all PMC >> members.) > > Are you referring to ASF members here? PMC members themselves who > are not ASF members must be voted in by the IPMC to gain IPMC membership. > ASF members interested in IPMC membership need only notify the chair > of their intentions. I don't expect any of that to change with what > I'm proposing. > >> For committers (non-PMC members), I'd want an existing IPMC >> or PMC member nominate the person to the IPMC and require a 72hr lazy >> consensus, since IPMC members are expected to mentor and teach new >> podlings about the Apache way. > > I would expect a more formal process of consensus voting for IPMC > membership in the case of a podling committer, ie 3 +1's and no > vetoes. The vote would be held on priv...@incubator naturally. > Agree. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
