> On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:20 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> This does NOT mean that the IPMC should be gatekeepers though... Just as
>> PMC chairs are the "eyes and ears of the board", mentors are the "eyes and
>> ears of the IPMC". The IPMC "vote" should be little more than a formality.
>> IMO, if mentors are IPMC members, and there are at least 3 binding votes on
>> the podling list, and the mentors are acting as IPMC members when they
>> vote, then any other additional vote in the IPMC is not required... in
>> essence, consider it like extending the vote for a lazy consensus, so to
>> speak:
>>
>>
>> "The Apache Podling Foo has voted on releasing Foo 1.2.2 (url and
>> pointers here). We have 3 (or more) binding votes from mentors. We are
>> giving the IPMC and additional 72 hours to vote on said release."
>>
>
>
> This is good in theory, but as Justin has pointed out, 90% of podling
> releases don't have enough mentor votes to follow this path.
>
> The 10% that do have enough votes can easily follow this process.
Then the ones that don't have enough mentors still require the 3 +1 binding
votes. The idea is that if the podling already has it, then the IPMC "vote" is
more procedural than anything else. If they don't, then either the mentors need
to step up or the IPMC fills in the gap.
The goal is to avoid having the Incubator be a gate-keeper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
