LOL know problem Ross ;)
On 8/17/10 1:46 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rgard...@apache.org> wrote: Sorry damned iPhone autocorrect. First word should be "I like" Sent from my mobile device. On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:38, Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org> wrote: > Unlike the observer role. It's very close to the current signing off of board > reports by mentors but forces them to do a little more than put there name to > a piece of electronic paper. > > Personally I imagined my binding vote, as a mentor, to indicate a) the > project debs want this tongi ahead and b) in my opinion it is sat for the ASF > and the project to proceed. > > I didn't imagine my vote having anything to do with the technical aspects of > the project (unless also a committer of course) > > This is what the board do when approving project reports right? It's about > social an community health not technical health, right? > > Sent from my mobile device. > > On 17 Aug 2010, at 05:56, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com> wrote: > >> [ CCing gene...@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit >> as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ; >> and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving >> context in for those on gene...@incubator ] >> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) >> <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>> (moving to oodt-...@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD) >>> >>> Hey Justin, >>> >>>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed) >>>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut >>>>> gallery" oversight. >>>> >>>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list >>>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the >>>> nascent community. With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant, >>>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so >>>> there's a bit of a risk there. Perhaps this will act as a prod to >>>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway. >>> >>> +1 >>> >>>> >>>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down >>>> and lead the conversation within OODT. That alone does give me a bit >>>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for. =) -- >>> >>> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have >>> something like: >>> >>> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today >>> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers >>> 3. OODT committers continue as-is >>> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight >>> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members >>> - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into >>> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC) >>> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members >>> - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken >>> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and >>> IPMC) >>> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put >>> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me, >>> ready = >>> - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!) >>> - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming >>> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there, >>> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward. >>> >>> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm >>> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had >>> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest >>> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from >>> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping >>> up Rishi!). >>> >>> Is that your take too? >> >> Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed. >> >> 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. >> >> For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit. >> So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted >> it or not. =) >> >> 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. >> >> 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...) >> >> 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... >> -- justin >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
