Projects are free to set their own bylaws. As long as the community as a whole
agree to removal of inactive members then they can do that. Though merit does
not and should not expire.
It is my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that keeping busy work to a
minimum is important to the
Hi Ross,
Thank you for your reply. Apache Ignite PMCs do not support this idea, so
inactive PMCs will be still there.
But still, it is not clear for me in general, why following
projects/guidelines contains removal procedure for Committer PMC:
- https://mnemonic.apache.org/develop/bylaws/ after
Merit does not expire. People who are not active today should be able to become
active tomorrow without having to jump through approval hoops.
In projects there is no concept of emeritus PMC. Here in the IPMC the issue is
very different. Most people earn merit transitively - become a member,
Hi -
Jumping in here although some points may be repetitive. (This turned into quite
a diatribe, apologies.)
TL/DR - I believe we need to revamp our workflows and record keeping to better
serve podlings and we need to teardown much of our website content as it is
duplicative of the
I absolutely agree with Greg Stein. I can't find any single reason to keep
unsubscribed members of IPMC in the roster. These members can be asked to
subscribe, and if they do, then ok; if don't - it is perfectly ok to remove.
Similarly, I don't see reasons for having inactive TLP PMC members.
That's right Greg. And since we are filling in gaps for people...
I was originally against the pTLP concept (though I supported the experiments)
or any of the derivatives that came from it. I think I have changed my
position. Largely based on the fact that every single project I've discussed
+1
If we trust mentors to ensure that their podling does the right thing as a
board committee this basically *is* a TLP and we wouldn't need an IPMC, but
if podlings need an IPMC then that must be because we allow for the
podlings to make missteps without bringing down the hammer.
Seems to me
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ross Gardler wrote:
> If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to
> act on behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the
> foundation.
>
>...
> Podlings would only become full TLPs once they have demonstrated their
>
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 9:58 PM Craig Russell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> > On Mar 3, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > Acts of the Foundation require specific oversight of the IPMC. To
> establish
> > that "act", we have the (3) +1 vote rule of IPMC members. The IPMC cannot
> > delegate
If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to act on
behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the foundation.
We already have a good set of practices around marking incubator projects and
their releases.
This is dependent upon the project
Hi Greg,
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Acts of the Foundation require specific oversight of the IPMC. To establish
> that "act", we have the (3) +1 vote rule of IPMC members. The IPMC cannot
> delegate this power further, as each IPMC member is specifically empowered
> by
I'd like to understand Greg's concerns better.
The complaint that I saw has to do with comments on release candidates, which I
believe there is a straightforward solution for (don't be so picky about the
first podling releases).
Are there any other instances of IPMC members meddling in
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:27 PM Thomas Weise wrote:
> Currently mentors need to be IPMC members. Is that really necessary?
>
Yes and no. :-)
If mentors are going to vote on *official releases* (and we skip the extra
layer of IPMC voting), then (3) mentors must be on the IPMC to make the
Currently mentors need to be IPMC members. Is that really necessary?
Alternatively mentors could be given all required powers through the PPMC
membership and the IPMC could be more focused on long term direction and
improving the incubator as a whole. IPMC already votes on incubator
proposals and
As a peanut, IMO, it could be that the root problem is that the drive-by folks
are discussing topics that are too subjective at a critical time (to get a
release out), not the number of folks who can drive-by. I'm not even in the
IPMC, and I can still follow general@ and offer opinions.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:42 AM Ted Dunning wrote:
> Greg,
>
> Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers?
>
Nope. I don't interact/meddle with podlings, but stick to meta/process
issues within the Incubator.
Somewhat recently, I worked with Fineract and Mynewt as a
Greg,
Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers?
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:55 AM Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem
> > either. We have inactive IPMC members
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem
> either. We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later
> if a community wants to join
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem
> > either. We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later
> > if a community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave and
> >
Hi,
> I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem either.
> We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later if a
> community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave and then
> join again.
Some context, over 300 projects have gone
Lots to distill here...
> On Mar 1, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for taking to time to distill this.
>
>> Many PMCs contain what could be called inactive PMC members. The concern is
>> if that makes any difference or impedes the active IPMC members. I’m not
>>
Hi,
Thanks for taking to time to distill this.
> Many PMCs contain what could be called inactive PMC members. The concern is
> if that makes any difference or impedes the active IPMC members. I’m not sure
> how inactive IPMC members are impacting the functioning of the IPMC.
I also don’t
Hi -
> On Mar 1, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> On 3/1/2019 5:12 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>> The Board isn't gonna worry about something like that.
>> I wasn’t expecting the board to say anything re that, but the IPMC could of.
Many PMCs contain what could be called inactive
25 matches
Mail list logo
