FTR Marvin, the reason I didn't vote this time round is because I read your own vote on the candidate and was utterly perplexed by it, so I was expecting to see another one come down the pike. Apologies.
>________________________________ > From: Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> >To: [email protected]; [email protected] >Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 7:31 PM >Subject: [lucy-dev] Thanks for voting! > >On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:10:06PM -0600, Peter Karman wrote: >> Peter Karman did not vote. > >Heh. > >We should update the email template in release_commands.pl so that the >dev-list email includes a line like this... > > Here's my +1. > >This assumes that the RM isn't trolling the community with a bogus release. ;) > >> The tally should have been: >> >> +1 Marvin Humphrey *+ >> +1 Chris Mattman *+ >> +1 Chris Hostetter *+ >> +1 David E. Wheeler * >> +1 Nick Wellnhofer * >> +1 Logan Bell * > >Thanks to everyone who voted, and to Peter for serving as Release Manager! > >This VOTE took longer than most, and it's worth reviewing why that happened >and what we can do to prevent such delays in the future. > >Quoting from a blog entry by Apache Board member Bernard Delacretaz: > > https://blogs.apache.org/comdev/entry/what_makes_apache_projects_different > > A formal PMC vote is required to publish a release. By voting to accept > the release, the PMC makes the release an act of the foundation, as > opposed to a personal action of the the release manager. This is a very > important distinction should any legal issues arise. > >So, if e.g. somebody wants to sue over an ASF release, they can only go after >the Apache Software Foundation itself -- not individual committers[1]. Of >course legal complications are not commonplace, but Apache projects can be >pretty high profile and stuff happens -- the now-retired Apache Harmony >project, for instance, is tangled up in the Google/Oracle spat. > >IANAL, but if I understand correctly, the ASF's legal indemnification >mechanism works something like this: > > * The Members own the Foundation. > * The Board is elected by the Members to represent them. > * The Board, acting by voting to approve a Board resolution, establishes a > PMC and directs it to make software for the public good. > * The PMC is fulfilling the Board's directive when it VOTEs to accept a > release. > >At this time, though, Lucy doesn't have a PMC. It has a PPMC -- "Podling >Project Management Committee" which has not received a directive from the >Board and thus does not have the authority to accept a release on behalf of >the Foundation. > >The Incubator PMC, or IPMC, in contrast, is an official PMC. In order to make >a Lucy incubating release official, we need members of the IPMC to VOTE. If >we get a majority vote of IPMC members with a quorum of three +1s, our Lucy >release becomes an act of the Incubator PMC and by extension an "act of the >Foundation". > >Lucy has four Mentors assigned to it, all of whom are members of the IMPC: > > * Chris Hostetter > * Chris Mattmann > * Joe Schaefer > * Upayavira > >An Incubator podling's Mentors are normally expected to provide the binding >IPMC votes which make its releases official. However, any member of the IPMC >can also cast a binding vote. I joined the IPMC about a year ago, so that >includes me. > >Doing the math... we were trying to get 3 IPMC votes out of a pool of 5 >people. That didn't work so well this time. I voted right away, but we >haven't heard from Upayavira in a long time and our three other Mentors all >just happened to be very busy. > >There's not much we can do about this while we're still in the Incubator and >dependent on IPMC votes. Once we graduate from the Incubator and persuade the >Board to approve a resolution establishing the Lucy top-level project[2], >though, our PPMC will become a PMC, and the votes of Apache Lucy PMC members >will be binding. Releasing still won't be instantaneous, but VOTEs will >typically last 72 hours rather than 2+ weeks. > >We just have to remember this lesson on what happens when you have a small >pool of potential votes to draw from. An Apache PMC that falls below 3 people >can't make a release at all. An Apache PMC that is small or that has a large >number of inactive members who don't vote may experience procedural problems >and delays along the lines of what we just witnessed. > >Therefore, it's good to have a PMC of decent size (some IPMC members won't >vote to graduate a PMC with fewer than five people on it) and for lots of >people in the community to get in the habit of voting. > >Did I remember to thank the people who voted? Hey, thanks for voting, y'all! > >Marvin Humphrey > >[1] More info on indemnification: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#how > >[2] Board resolutions establishing top-level-projects: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution > > > >
