Sent from my tablet On Oct 13, 2012 2:59 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Ross Gardler > <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > > Nobody, in my opinion, sh8old be voting on a release without having > > conducted the appropriate verifications themselves. > > -0 > > I agree -- but that's not going far enough. > > In my view, no one should vote on a release unless they're subscribed to the > podling's dev list. >
Agreed. > That the Incubator's release process would grind to a halt without "freelance" > IPMC votes exposes a systemic flaw. > Also agreed. I think Jukka's release taskforce idea is a good way to address this. With respect to the rest of the thread, all very valid but I think the above points are the important ones. Ross > >> The first AOO release got my freelance IPMC vote because it was clear that > >> they knew what they were doing and were taking their role as IP stewards > > > > (As a mentor I also voted +1 so don't take my next comments personally) > > > > This is a perfect example of why proper reviews are necessary. In the > > second AOO release a problem was discovered (that was present in the first > > release). > > After reviewing the thread at < http://markmail.org/message/2penzb453qzo55rz> > and seeing people competently and earnestly work through a thorny issue, I'm > inclined to draw the opposite conclusion. Rather than a failure of oversight, > this seems like an example of successful empowerment and self-policing. > > In the real world, IP bugs happen. (Just look at all the slop we see in > LICENSE and NOTICE files.) To my mind, what matters most is not whether a > project can avoid all IP bugs forever, but whether the team possesses both the > capacity and the will to detect and dispatch IP bugs efficiently. > > >> , it is much more important that the community members own the task of IP > >> management themselves than that they pass any sort of superficial > >> documentation review. > > > > Isn't that a contradiction? If you voted +1 on the grounds of the PPMC > > knowing what they we doing isn't that a the most "superficial of > > documentation reviews"? > > My position is that the oversight mechanisms generally employed by the > Incubator, such as license header scans, are inherently superficial even when > executed conscientiously. A truly rigorous IP audit would proceed either > line-by-line, or commit-by-commit to match up with the standard of an Apache > PMC scrutinizing individual messages to a commits list. > > For the record, my review of the first AOO release candidate was considerably > more thorough than the norm. In fact, I doubt you will find a more thorough > review of an incubating release by a non-Mentor in the last two years, and > perhaps not for a long time before that. > > Here are links to the review thread and to my final VOTE: > > http://markmail.org/thread/b4wdzilemtu36i4a > http://markmail.org/message/ejs6qw6kpr22o3ps > > > It seems all you reviewed was some mailing list traffic. > > That's completely inaccurate. > > Please review the review thread. I went several rounds with Jürgen Schmidt, > though the work was spread out across multiple people and multiple lists. > LICENSE and NOTICE were reformulated and we built consensus for the new > approach both here and on legal-discuss. We pored over the rat-excludes file > and got RAT passing. When I found that the svn tag and the release archive > did not match, we had a discussion about scripting release builds. We > discussed why the file name had to include the string "incubating", file > formats for sums and sigs, etc, etc... > > > I encourage us to empower more people who do the work so their vot3s are > > binding. > > In my opinion, it's ridiculous that Jürgen Schmidt's heroics on the first AOO > release did not earn him a binding vote on the second. > > When it comes to release voting, the Incubator does not recognize merit, and > the Incubator does not encourage self-government. The miserable experience of > podlings as they twist in the wind for weeks awaiting "freelance" votes from > disintested IPMC members is the inevitable result. > > I'm glad that Roman wants to do his part to spare Helix from that fate, and I > wish him the best of luck. Personally, I have made a decision not to perform > any more freelance reviews. It is difficult to do them well, and each +1 > serves to perpetuate a rotten system. > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
