On May 8, 2013, at 11:15 AM, Suresh Marru <sma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors. A >> mentor is free to become inactive but must explicitly state this else the >> mentor risks being removed for not performing their duties. Podlings that >> do not have the minimum of two active mentors are put on hold until they >> find enough mentors to fill the quota. Being put on hold means that no >> committers can be added, no PPMC members can be added, and no releases can >> be performed. It does not stop development. >> >> People starting threads must provide editorial summaries else the thread is >> considered to be a tree falling in the forest. If you can't commit to >> providing summaries then you shouldn't start threads that waste people's >> time. >> >> Releases need +1 votes from the two active mentors. A subsequent 72 hour >> quiet period would follow for IPMC members to vote as well. > > I am assuming (or rather hoping) the third vote will happen on the general > list. Which ever form the incubator (or lack of) shapes into, the general > list is were I have seen the most cross-fertizliation happens. I agree that > we need to address releases not getting attention, I felt the release trips > to general were extremely educational. During incubation, this process felt > too painful and furstrating but looking back, release process and gets vastly > improvised during these iterations. And once set out on a right tone, its a > matter of incrementally maintaining it. The quite period may be a misnomer. Since the release will have had two +1 votes from active mentors, no further work is required to release. The 72 hour period is for IPMC members to also cast their vote if they so desire. Inevitably bike shed issues pop in during this period but I agree that new podlings often flush out new and unique situations. Regards, Alan
