Hey Justin, Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. My comments below:
> > See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I > honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases. I've > known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising > the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding > vote? > > I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to > have the power. At the core, that is what Apache is about - and > having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like > straying from that. I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and > keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work > done. So basically you are moving more towards Joe's proposal, that the PPMC would have the binding VOTEs in e.g., new committers/PMC members, and on releases? Of course, with the caveats below, as you mention, i.e., the observers can "observe" and step in where necessary, but ultimately, they're there to ensure things are going great, and not to get in the way, unless they aren't? +1 to that. > Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck, > being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in > my head) applies to you. You're a member, you know how things work, > you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense. Smucks like me > who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts? Nah, not right that I > should have a binding vote. No way you'd ever be a smuck in my book. And don't worry I'll get you on the Maven bandwagon! ^_^ > > Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that > all of the major processes were followed? Heck yah. No qualms there. > Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies, > there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections. They > witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is > going on. They don't vote, but they do "observe". They then issue a > certification or report to be filed with the vote. (I'm catching up > on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article > about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...) +1. So our OODT "observers" would be: You, Jean Frederic, Ross, Ian, and me? PPMC stays the same, but they are given: * binding release/committer VOTEs In this case, observers are just really the mentors, and we move towards the mentors ensuring all is going well (which they should do now anyways), but IPMC "ratification" isn't required, and PPMC gets to self-govern. +1 from me on that, I think that's the right thing to teach, and with mentors that pay attention, I think we'll be great. I've heard a lot of talk in not just this thread, but over the past day about podlings with mentors that aren't active. Well, if the mentors aren't active, then they shouldn't be a mentor and we should make room for those that have the cycles and that are ready to "observe". > > Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this > reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight > model. Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else? Could a > combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient? I think so... If my interpretation above is correct, big +1 from me. Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
