Re: Binding term
Please take a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ INCUBATOR-72 which I believe fixes the problem. The policy calls for a community vote (which generally only the mentors are aware of) and if successful, followed by a binding vote on the incubator general list by which all incubator members can review and vote. There really isn't anything wrong with the current policy except for the confusion caused by the reference to binding PPMC votes. Here's the policy with the patch applied: Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list. At least three +1 votes are required (see the Apache Voting Process page). If the majority of all votes is positive, then the Podling SHALL send a summary of that vote to the Incubator'sgeneral list and formally request the Incubator PMC approve such a release. Three +1 Incubator PMC votes are required. Below is an example showing how an incubating project managed this process: The only thing that this change does not address is whether the podling's PMC can stop the vote from progressing to the incubator general list. I'd say if this is the issue, then the podling has serious trouble that should be brought to the attention of the incubator general, and as such I don't see any issue. Craig On Feb 3, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member votes are binding. But somehow I like the fact that in most cases the vote is much wider - and I think that this helps foster a community responsiblity. Yes. But that's no different from elsewhere in the ASF where many people, e.g., users, vote, but only PMC votes are binding. Perhaps we need to do something like having the whole community vote and then taking this as their proposal to the PMC which then votes as to wether to pass this community advice on. This is just an artifact of the mailing lists, IMO. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: Binding term
ant elder wrote: The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member votes are binding. Now I'm confused. If it says only PMC member votes are binding does that mean Incubator PMC? Yes. The PPMC has no legal standing, and is an Incubator artifact. We want them to vote, but the only *binding* votes are those of Incubator PMC members. Hence the suggestion that every podling have at least three Mentors. Wouldn't that mean the vote on the dev list needs three Incubator PMC +1s before the Incubator general list vote can be started? No. And, yes, the separate votes is confusing to people. It is purely an artifact of having separate mailing lists, as there is really just one vote. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Binding term
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member votes are binding. But somehow I like the fact that in most cases the vote is much wider - and I think that this helps foster a community responsiblity. Yes. But that's no different from elsewhere in the ASF where many people, e.g., users, vote, but only PMC votes are binding. Perhaps we need to do something like having the whole community vote and then taking this as their proposal to the PMC which then votes as to wether to pass this community advice on. This is just an artifact of the mailing lists, IMO. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Binding term
On Jan 31, 2008 5:40 AM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and only the PPMC member votes are binding. The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member votes are binding. --- Noel Now I'm confused. If it says only PMC member votes are binding does that mean Incubator PMC? Wouldn't that mean the vote on the dev list needs three Incubator PMC +1s before the Incubator general list vote can be started? If thats what we want would it be easier to just forget about the dev list vote and have a single vote on the Incubator general list? ...ant
Re: Binding term
On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: and only the PPMC member votes are binding. The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member votes are binding. But somehow I like the fact that in most cases the vote is much wider - and I think that this helps foster a community responsiblity. Perhaps we need to do something like having the whole community vote and then taking this as their proposal to the PMC which then votes as to wether to pass this community advice on. This has the interesting benefit that if the community votes 'no' -- the PMC cannot make it a yes. Dw. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Binding term
On Jan 31, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Erik Abele wrote: Perhaps we need to do something like having the whole community vote and then taking this as their proposal to the PMC which then votes as to wether to pass this community advice on. Yes, we're already doing that it's just very confusing to a lot of people :) Well -- you and I (and a lot of others) understand it that way. But I am not sure if this is universally shared ? I often find people, say at a non apache conference, who just do not see/experience it that way. I like your term communiy advice - the PPMC gauges interest by holding a vote where only I'd go a step further - and would expect the PPMC to either follow or 'reject with explanation' -- rather than do something totally different. Or if they do - announce such clearly with another chance for the community to visibly rally. Problem is - in the end of the day - the boards hold that same PMC accountable - no matter wath their community did. the votes of the PPMC members are *counting* (binding) and then forwards this as a community advice to the IPMC which holds another vote to sign it off (where only the votes of the IPMC members are counting/binding). Later, as soon as the Podling has graduated, the second step goes away and the former PPMC can now directly vote and sign-off by itself... Agreed. Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Binding term
On 31.01.2008, at 13:26, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: and only the PPMC member votes are binding. The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member votes are binding. But somehow I like the fact that in most cases the vote is much wider - and I think that this helps foster a community responsiblity. Absolutely. Perhaps we need to do something like having the whole community vote and then taking this as their proposal to the PMC which then votes as to wether to pass this community advice on. Yes, we're already doing that it's just very confusing to a lot of people :) I like your term communiy advice - the PPMC gauges interest by holding a vote where only the votes of the PPMC members are *counting* (binding) and then forwards this as a community advice to the IPMC which holds another vote to sign it off (where only the votes of the IPMC members are counting/binding). Later, as soon as the Podling has graduated, the second step goes away and the former PPMC can now directly vote and sign-off by itself... Cheers, Erik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Binding term
I think it's confusing people to use the term binding in different contexts. I'd like to propose that the term is only used to refer to decisions/votes that are binding on The Apache Software Foundation, which means decisions/votes made by a duly authorized PMC. In particular, the following text implies that a PPMC has a binding voice: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list. At least three +1 votes are required (see the Apache Voting Process page), and only the PPMC member votes are binding. If the majority of all votes is positive, then the Podling SHALL send a summary of that vote to the Incubator's general list and formally request the Incubator PMC approve such a release. Three +1 Incubator PMC votes are required. Below is an example showing how an incubating project managed this process: I'd prefer if the text only the PPMC member votes are binding were changed to only the PPMC member votes are counted. Better still, simply remove the entire text , and only the PPMC member votes are binding. Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Binding term
Craig L Russell wrote: I think it's confusing people to use the term binding in different contexts. I'd like to propose that the term is only used to refer to decisions/votes that are binding on The Apache Software Foundation, which means decisions/votes made by a duly authorized PMC. In particular, the following text implies that a PPMC has a binding voice: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list. At least three +1 votes are required (see the Apache Voting Process page), and only the PPMC member votes are binding. If the majority of all votes is positive, then the Podling SHALL send a summary of that vote to the Incubator's general list and formally request the Incubator PMC approve such a release. Three +1 Incubator PMC votes are required. Below is an example showing how an incubating project managed this process: I'd prefer if the text only the PPMC member votes are binding were changed to only the PPMC member votes are counted. Better still, simply remove the entire text , and only the PPMC member votes are binding. Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! Agree with Craig, the text above took me a while to work out what was going and because PPMC votes are 'not' binding only IPMC votes are in the incubator. Carl. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Binding term
and only the PPMC member votes are binding. The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member votes are binding. --- Noel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
