On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:50PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On 08/04/2015 02:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > Sorry if it rubs the wrong way. However, we just have seen through the
> > Ignite
> > discussion (most recent one) the examples where personal expectations were
> > represented as graduation requirements. It is perhaps in good faith - I am
> > not
> > questioning the intention. I am saying that when requirements are unclear,
> > people interpret them based on their own understanding of unwritten Apache
> > ethos. As Brane called it earlier - "confusing opinions and policies". You
> > see
> > where I am going with this, right?
>
> Perhaps I'm unclear on the proposal - but how would that be mitigated by
> this proposal? I understand that it might expose podlings to less of
> this when directed towards the full IPMC for graduation, but how would
> it prevent this if a mentor confuses personal expectations for
> graduation requirements?
>
> Isn't that still a potential issue?
You're right, it still might be an issue. My vision was that with a reduced
involvement of the IPMC namely
- IPMC delegating more day-to-day oversight of the podlings to the mentors
- release votes just Cc'ed to general@ instead of an explicit IPMC vote. It
doesn't contradict the requirement of the binding votes, but the primarily
would be coming from mentors, I believe
- more precise graduation guidelines, eg w/o moot 'diversity'-like points
the environment will be less accommodating for such confusions and would cause
lesser number of complex debates. This, in turn, will make the incubation
process more transparent and less counter-intuitive for newcomers.
Hopefully it clarifies my point a bit better. What do you think?
Cos
> I may misunderstand or have lost track of how that's handled in all the
> discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
