On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:14 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 8:10 PM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Another solution is to do back door politicking where you contact IPMC >> members individually and ask them to take a look. Start with members who >> have voted on Mahout releases in the past and be specific about what you >> would like them do and provide links to artifacts and discussions to make >> the job easy. >> >> That has usually been my best way to succeed on that. >> >> > 9 times out of 10, I ignore those emails. If its someone I don't know, > I'll send them over to http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html . I'm not > sure who created that page but I like it. > > We rely first and foremost of podling mentors to review releases. Its much > easier to review a release if the mentors have reviewed and given it a once > over. We're all volunteers here. To me its also a good sign of mentor > engagement seeing the mentors review the releases.
And that's exactly why my constant advice to all the podlings is to get at least 3 mentors so that at least in theory those are the ones from IPMC who would care. Interestingly enough, it hasn't really worked 100% but it is definitely better than hoping for random IPMC votes. I'm starting to wonder whether the real solution here should be along the lines of what a board would do to a TLP if its active PMC shrinks to less than 3 people. This actually reminds me that I need to write my positioning statement since this is definitely one of the issues I'd like to keep exploring more and more instead of waiting for emails like the one that started this thread to kick us in the collective IPMC butt. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
