Hi, > But, assuming that each podling has three active mentors, each podling should > have 3 +1 IPMC vote before the RC goes to general@ and then is, as Sebb says > below basically a "lazy" consensus vote as 3 +1 are present and if no one > throws in a -1 it will pass regularly and is a regular release.
Sadly only about 10% of votes come to the incubator with 3 +1 IPMC votes, even on projects with three or more active mentors not all vote for a number of reasons. > So from my perspective we should really work on the Mentor activity then the > "voting" problem becomes minor. It's certainly an issue, it improved a lot of the last few years but mentors could still be more involved in some projects. > Also I think our current practice of just saying "Interesting project, count > me in as Mentor" is not good as this leads exactly to the situation I > described above. It can do yes. > So I would suggest to make the Mentor assignment somewhat binding, e.g. by > IPMC Vote or some other process and to force in the "activity" of mentors. > I have no detailed idea how this should be done but if Mentors regularily do > not vote on Podling releases and do not signoff podling reports this is a > sign that perhaps another mentor has to step in. Reports signing off is tracked. I use to keep track on inactive mentors, there's a strong correlation between not been active and not signing off 3 reports in a row, Also if mentors are missing podlings can put that in their report (there’s a question on that) and ask for more mentors. Thanks, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
