On 10/09/2015 08:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: >>> ...Furthermore, I would like to see this extended to votes on graduating or >>> retiring podlings,.. >> >> IMO this is where independence is important. We could require that 3 >> "organizationally independent" IPMC members review each podling before >> graduating or retiring. Those people do not need to be project >> mentors. > > I much prefer a formulation of "3 independent" over "no financial > ties", and would prefer such a criteria be considered whenever the > impulse arises to ensure that NO involved individual has a vested > interest. > > I'll go further and say that financial interests are but one way in > which individuals have a vested interest in the success of a project, > and echoing a statement by Ross -- having a vested interest is not a > bad thing.
Perhaps my initial suggestion needs some modification to the wording. People with a vested interest (for a certain definition of the term) is in itself not a bad thing when it comes to mentoring, but it can become tricky when it comes to giving recommendations to the IPMC about how to proceed from a neutral standpoint. That is what I aimed to have us work on. I would imagine no one would object to a policy that says you cannot have a binding vote if you have a financial interest in graduating a podling, but my real point is we should leave the decision making to those who are truly neutral, much as we let a judge and/or a neutral jury decide if we're guilty or not in a legal case. Perhaps we could change it to: - Binding votes on incubation, graduation and/or retirement are only valid when given by members of the IPMC who are independent from the podling in question. Mentors are free to recommend such actions, but cannot cast a vote themselves. WDYT? With regards, Daniel. > > Finally, I would prefer a model whereby those that have achieved ASF > member status are given the benefit of the doubt in matters involving > a group vote when it comes to their ability to separate their ASF role > from their relationship with their employee. Nothing wrong with still > requiring 3 completely independent votes, but having a rule that > excludes participation by those that have demonstrated their merit as > ASF members just seems wrong. > > - Sam Ruby > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
