On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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. > John: you can help a pTLP just as much as any other podling. Is your point that you don't have a binding vote? That your help is tied into such a forceful voice? ... I believe that your wisdom will be helpful, regardless of whether your vote is binding or not. >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 is not a concern, and is one of the reasons that myself and others are championing the pTLP process. The above is not quite correct, and having ASF Members and direct interaction with the Board will help communities to understand what/how the Foundation truly operates. Yes, we require (3) +1 votes for a *release*. No, that requirement does not apply whatsoever to adding new PMC members, and certainly not towards new committers (and other aspects of turning community members into active contributors). The VP can unilaterally add new PMC members and committers. We don't like to see that, but you're already proposing a community in crisis; in that case, I *EXPECT* the VP to act unilaterally to reboot the active participation. And recall: the Board has the direct oversight and helpful aid for that project. If the VP is the one to disappear, then the Board will notice and will ask for a recommendation to replace. In short, a TLP or pTLP can always recover from stasis. Unlike a podling subject to another group for its well-being, a (p)TLP has the complete ability to rebuild itself. The VP of the (p)TLP is an Office and is directed towards ensuring the success and well-being of the project. That allows for a *very* wide-ranging set of actions. 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. > As Ross noted elsewhere, this is a new/experimental process for moving projects into the Foundation. The Incubator shall remain, and can continue to address your concern for projects without ASF Members to advance the pTLP style process. >... Cheers, -g
