I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP.
We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ > From: John D. Ament<mailto:johndam...@apache.org> > Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>; > Bertrand Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org>; Sam Ruby<mailto:rubys@ > intertwingly.net> > Cc: Apache Board<mailto:bo...@apache.org> > Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document > > Roman, > > I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these > proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in > how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, > I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. > > From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three > existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation > where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional > member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone > of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot > ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. > > This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed > by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external > groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly > willing to help foster that community. > > I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor > projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to > seeing the results. > > John > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > since a few board members requested a detailed document > > outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > action?pageId=51812862 > > which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale > > is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered > > good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level > > of standard would be unfair. > > > > At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as > > wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request > > attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of > > a document to be available. > > > > Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit > > the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can > > give you karma, though). > > > > I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy > > in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more > > time to join ASF as a pTLP project. > > > > Thanks, > > Roman. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
