On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:18 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On Saturday, January 24, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < > ross.gard...@microsoft.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ross.gard...@microsoft.com');>> wrote: > > > No, the PMC is *not* the driving force. The project community is, even > > where the PMC is a subset of the committers. Since it is the set of > active > > *contributors* that are important, they are the ones doing the work. > > I totally agree, but pTLC calls for a PMC that can be 0% subset of the > community, how can the PMC in this situation reflect the community? >
Because the Board chose to put people onto the PMC that understand: *guide* the community. Not *rule* the community. Even better is when the ASF/PMC members are *part* of the community, rather than just being present to assist with that guidance. In the current Incubator model, a "Champion" is chosen. That is usually a person who has some self-interest in the project, and becomes *part* of the community. So you already have some overlap there. > > Remember we talk rules here, and rules should be made so the reflect what > we want, and I believe it is important that the community is represented in > the PMC, not 100% but also not 0%. > No. We DON'T talk about rules here. I said "create a PMC with a couple requirements". Then the project does what works best for their community, within the overall view of what the ASF believes makes a great project. Rules exist to provide guidance when consensus does not exist. That is all a rule is good for. A project with a strong consensus model doesn't need rules. > > I don't understand your argument about releases. Nothing changes under > > under the pTLP proposal with respect to how a release is made. In any ASF > > project the full community votes for a release if they want to. Only the > > PMC have binding votes, but they should listen to the community in casting > > those votes (same is true for podlings where the podling community votes on > > a release but it needs to be formalized by the IPMC via its mentors). > I read the rules instead of believing in "should". If a PMC does not like a > technical direction, they can block it totally within the rules, even if > all non-PMC prefers it. Sure... they *could*. How long do you honestly believe the Board would allow that to continue? Seriously. You propose a situation that just won't ever happen. > I think my problem is that I agree with both you and Roman, The PMC should > leave technical matters including releases to the total community. But > alone by talking about "binding" and "non-binding" votes creates two > levels, and if the PMC does not include the incoming community the > disconnect gets bigger. There *are* two different levels. That is how it works. Always has. Always will. Accept that. But that doesn't mean those with binding votes should (or WOULD!!) ignore those without. I don't see that happen. Do you? I would guess not. So it isn't something to worry about. I also specifically said "ASF Members" because I believe *they* know how to run a community. Not to use the ASF legal structure against it, but to help the community work *within* the structure. As Ross said: to empower the community. > With pTLC I fear that the incoming community will feel empowered, the [ I'm assuming you meant: "not feel empowered" ] > community does not (according to the rules) need to vote, just let the ASF > members do the work. With PPMC the podling must make a vote otherwise a > release will never happen. That won't happen. The community will do the work. If not, then there wasn't a community. You are looking at an extreme failure mode "according to what is possible in the rules". I am telling you: that won't happen. We don't allow our communities to do that, and we won't create a PMC that allows that to happen. And the Board will be reviewing the project to *ensure* it doesn't happen. > Again please remember I read the suggested rules and see what could go > wrong, in a perfect world we would not have wars and every project would > function perfect. Your pessimism is unwarranted. -g
