----- Original Message ----
> From: Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 12:18:39 PM
> Subject: RE: an experiment
>
> > 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 reason for the existence of the PPMC is to help foster that
> self-governance, but we must recognize two things. One, the projects are
> not yet entitled to full self-governance. That's why they are in the
> Incubator. Two, the ASF Bylaws name *the* governing body for each project
> as the PMC, which is required to provide oversight.
>
>
> > 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
>
> -1
>
> The PPMC has no legal or structural standing with the ASF. Decisions are
> made -- and required to be made -- by each project's PMC, as per the Bylaws.
Are you trying to tell me that both jakarta and httpd have been in violation
of Apache bylaws all these years?
> If the PPMC has 3 or more PMC members, it should be capable of mustering the
> necessary votes by virtue of those PMC members voting.
>
> Now, if the ASF Board would like to approve a different behavior, I'd accept
> that, but I don't believe that a PMC should take it on itself to skirt ASF
> Bylaws, and we've tried very hard to structure the Incubator within them.
Amongst current board members are the ex-chair of Jakarta and an ex-chair
of httpd. I would love to see you bring your concerns to the board about
their past conduct regarding new committers.
The fact that committers have no legal standing in this org means there is
no reason a "decision" made about them needs formal approval by a PMC.
Your reading of the corporate structure of this org is needlessly formal.
>
> > 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.
>
> -1
>
> The Incubator PMC, unlike other PMCs, isn't preoccupied with the codebase;
> it is about community. And even with respect to code, we have far too much
> experience with projects attempt to put out improper releases to abandon our
> oversight obligations.
I'm actually sugggesting we *enhance* our oversight capabilities,
not abandon them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
