Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is what we're talking about. Not the Strawman.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > Oh, my mistake! (smile) I confused pTLP with the "Strawman" proposal there > for a minute. In the pTLP proposal, there are no new-to-the-Foundation > project members on the pTLP PMC. > > "All proposals for new ASF projects must include an initial PMC chair and > an initial set of PMC members. These people must be acceptable to the > board. It is the responsibility of the Incubator Committee to vett these > people. All of them must have experience on existing PMCs" > > > Newcomers to Apache *might* get committership depending how the > only-members-as-PMC decide. They don't get even non-binding stakeholdership > in decisionmaking on new commiters, releases, and so on. > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. > > > > Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal > > ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals, > > then the decision is reviewed as a whole. But this is not how things > > would work in a pTLP, right? Individuals there would effectively cast > > votes +1 (binding), or -1 (binding), +1 (non-binding), or -1 > > (non-binding), etc., depending if they are a Member or not. Maybe in > > practice the pTLP PMC wouldn't write down their votes like that, but > > somehow the distinction must be presented in the tallies to be > meaningful. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On 25.01.2015 19:51, Andrew Purtell wrote: > >> >> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems > with > >> > > > >> > a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the impression > >> > > > >> > that the PPMC can make binding decisions. > >> > > >> > Close. The PPMC membership feels they have made a decision that > matters > >> > with equal input. > >> > Certainly on PPMCs I've been on, > >> > there is awareness that everything is > >> > provisional > >> > . Still, a > >> > process takes place on PPMC mailing lists leading to a tallied > outcome. > >> > The input that leads to this output is the consensus or voting of *a > >> group > >> > of equal peers*. > >> > This output is handed to the IPMC in aggregate. > >> > When casting votes on the PPMC lists there are no +1 (binding) or +1 > >> > (non-binding) distinctions made. PPMC sends the outcome over to the > IPMC > >> > feeling some level of ownership having just participated in a decision > >> > making process as equal > >> > s > >> > . (Or at least so I think, in some perhaps quaint notion.) Of course > in > >> > IPMC voting it is different, but the IPMC is where supervision > happens, > >> or > >> > doesn't, as some argue. > >> > >> This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. Any committer can > >> propose a release. The PMC must (!) start a (public) vote. Anyone can > >> vote, with PMC votes being binding. /Any/ -1 vote, either from PMC > >> member or plain committer, should block the release and trigger a > >> discussion to find a solution; and in this discussion (which purpose is > >> to reach consensus on a solution), PMC members have no more voice than > >> any other community member. > >> > >> If the PMC decides to ignore a -1 on a release vote, they'd better have > >> really good reasons for that, or I'd expect the Board to come down like > >> a ton of bricks on that PMC. > >> > >> The situation is slightly different with new committer/PMC member > >> nominations and votes, which are private; you have a point there. > >> > >> -- Brane > >> > >> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 25.01.2015 19:16, Andrew Purtell wrote: > >> >>> With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make votes we call binding on > >> matters > >> >> of > >> >>> their own project. > >> >> As other people have said, PPMC members (that are not also IPMC > >> members) > >> >> do not have binding votes, neither for releases nor for inviting new > >> >> committers/PPMC members. The "binding" bit lies with the IPMC, which > >> can > >> >> revoke any formal decision made by the PPMC. > >> >> > >> >> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems > with > >> >> a podling's first few releases), which is why you get the impression > >> >> that the PPMC can make binding decisions. In this respect, there's no > >> >> practical difference between the current IPMC model and the proposed > >> >> pTLP model. > >> >> > >> >> Of course, when it comes to /technical/ decisions, there's no such > >> thing > >> >> as a vote, so the term "binding" does not apply. Consensus, of one > form > >> >> or another, always rules: and the IPMC or mentors can't meddle in > this > >> >> case. > >> >> > >> >> -- Brane > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
