It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
I note that this change is different to the trademark promise made
earlier since that one had been agreed in the discuss thread. That
change was merely bringing the proposal into line with the discussion.
This change was discussed after the vote had been called, which is
quite different.
I can also understand the concern that there is a potential for a
"slippery slope" here (although I will note this is not the first time
proposals have been tweaked during a vote - which should just be a
formality since consensus is gauged through discussion).
I am disappointed that following (what appears to be) unwritten rules
to the letter rather than in the spirit of community development is
more important to the IPMC members who have spoken, but I have to
accept the majority opinion.
I consider my wrists well and truly slapped and appreciate that nobody
has gone so far as to veto the vote.
I trust someone who believes this is a fixed rule rather than a
social-norm by which we are guided will now go and document it
appropriately in [2] (see ISSUE 09 [1]).
(I keep wanting to delete that last sentence as it feels like a
parting shot - it's not meant that way, it is an important point.
I don't agree with this new rule, but I do appear to be in the minority. In
an attempt to prove it's not a parting shot I've make the change
myself in r866129:
Index: content/incubation/Process_Description.html
===================================================================
--- content/incubation/Process_Description.html
(.../production/incubator) (revision 866128)
+++ content/incubation/Process_Description.html
(.../staging/incubator/trunk) (revision 866128)
@@ -231,6 +231,8 @@
getting feedback about what is actually happening. The Sponsor will
typically take about 7-10 days before announcing a vote result.
</p>
+<p>Once the vote has been called the proposal should be considered fixed.
+ No further changes are accepted.</p>
<p>If that vote is affirmative, the Sponsor (unless the Sponsor is
already the Incubator PMC) will propose to the
)
Ross
[1]
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013#Issue_09_-_People_do_not_follow_through_to_improve_Incubator_documentation
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html
On 18 June 2013 17:12, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> However, in this specific case the social norm *should* be to allow the
>> change to proceed - that's the most efficient process.
>
> Modifying a vote that has started is a slippery slope. (The same is true for
> reusing version numbers: ANY change to something that has been tagged must get
> a new version number - no matter how small the change may be.) One solution
> is
> to restart the vote. Another is to run a parallel vote for the
> delta/amendment.
>
> Concretely, can't you just start a thread on private@ saying "The
> would-be-PPMC
> has consensus on inviting X as a committer"? This would allow you to invite X
> to be a committer shortly after the original vote ends.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
