If speed is the concern, how is a week-long process (option #1) better than the traditional process (option #2)?
In option number two any of the committers can suggest someone, bring up a vote and conclude the matter by day's end. There is no week-long waiting period and there is no need to coordinate efforts with an ASF sponsor. It just happens, as quickly as the developers see fit. (PMC intervention notwithstanding) ( the non-committer places his imaginary ballot) -0 for option #1 +1 for option #2 -- N. Alex Rupp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Blewitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [vote] Process for adding committers > Surely the basic ideas are the same, though? They are following ASF > procedures; the only difference proposed by Davanum is that to > kick-start the process off, rather than waiting for the committers to > propose people, a number of people step forward in that week and then > block voting occurs. The only difference is kick-starting the list of > proposed committers. > > Alex. > > On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 18:21 Europe/London, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > > > With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed > > quickly so > > I am calling for a vote between the two following options: > > > > Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas: > > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations. > > Existing committers can nominate new committers by > > sending a note to the dev mailing list. > > Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of > > nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev > > mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week. > > Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate > > their preference in an email to the dev mailing list. > > Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the > > incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new > > committers. > > > > Option #2 from Ryan Ackley: > > Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at > > any time. The proposing committer generally lists > > their contributions and why they should be made a > > committer. > > Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer. > > The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus > > ( three +1's and no -1's) as per > > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html > > (note this is a different link than Ryan's original) > > Step #3: A positive result is handled as per > > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html > > > > We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days > > (+1's > > less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious. > > > > My vote: > > Option #1: > > -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the > > beginning for all committers rather than a custom one > > > > Option #2: > > +1 jboynes - It's the normal process > > > >
