> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> 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. > > 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.
IMO, adding more policy of this sort does not address the core concerns that Daniel details in his proposal, i.e. MIA mentors. Let’s not rush to add more bureaucracy and rules. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
