On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > 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?
You know when to vote and *how* to vote. I see no reason to deny your vote. The (only) problem to arise would be if OODT was at the minimum of (3) ASF Members, and your vote was required. With Chris becoming a Member, OODT is at 5 Members that could comprise the mini/pseudo TLP that I propose. (maybe there are others interested, but I have zero insight into this community) >... >> 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'm not sure that I'm reading the above properly, but... whatevs. Under my proposed TLP-based approach, the PMC would be comprised of: justin, jean, ross, ian, chris. The current committers (who are also on the PPMC, presumably) would be invited to the private@ list, but would not be on the PMC. Thus, they would have non-binding votes across all project decisions. But that should not be a problem as those PMC members also understand how to build and listen to consensus. If there are issues in the community, then the difference between binding and non-binding votes makes *zero* difference. The (podling) project/PMC would report directly to the Board. No more peanut gallery, or a second-guessing group. I do agree there is a lot of hand-waving around "how to graduate", but I presume that the community can figure that out and provide information for future projects and communities. >... Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
