On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
>> Also, to be clear, as an IPMC member I spend quite a bit of time with
>> projects where I am not a mentor, casting (binding) votes on things
>> like their releases. I will continue to d
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:16, Leo Simons wrote:
>...
> Not merit, just "binding vote". I agree that it sucks, but it is not
> something where the incubator has "gone awry", it has _always_ been
> messed up like this.
>
> Here's what I understand:
>
> 1) Apache rule: all apache releases must be mad
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:16, Leo Simons wrote:
>>...
>> Not merit, just "binding vote". I agree that it sucks, but it is not
>> something where the incubator has "gone awry", it has _always_ been
>> messed up like this.
>>
>> Here's what I unde
Leo Simons wrote:
>
> Here's what I understand:
>
> 1) Apache rule: all apache releases must be made by PMCs
> 2) Apache rule: a release needs at least 3 binding +1s and more +1s than -1s
> 3) from #1 and #2 it follows that all incubator releases must be made
> by the incubator PMC
> If you see
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:07, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>> Here's what I understand:
>>
>> 1) Apache rule: all apache releases must be made by PMCs
>> 2) Apache rule: a release needs at least 3 binding +1s and more +1s than -1s
>> 3) from #1 and #2 it follows that all inc
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:07, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> wrote:
>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's what I understand:
>>>
>>> 1) Apache rule: all apache releases must be made by PMCs
>>> 2) Apache rule: a release needs at least 3 binding +1s and
I like Leo's proposal. With PMC members mentoring multiple projects, it
is really a burden to try and get 3 votes for a release.
Shanti
Leo Simons wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:07, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:22, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> The IPMC is in charge of its operation. It can redefine the rules of
>> releases as it pleases. The three +1 rule was developed to show that
>> the PMC is "in charge" of the release, and
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> The IPMC is in charge of its operation. It can redefine the rules of
> releases as it pleases. The three +1 rule was developed to show that
> the PMC is "in charge" of the release, and is therefore legally liable
> for it. The IPMC can do whatever it likes around releases, as
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 13:11, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> The IPMC is in charge of its operation. It can redefine the rules of
>> releases as it pleases. The three +1 rule was developed to show that
>> the PMC is "in charge" of the release, and is therefore legally liable
(i'm really short of time ATM so apologies in advance if i'm very slow
to respond)
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 13:11, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> The IPMC is in charge of its operation. It can redefine the rules of
>
> > 1) PPMC must vote for the release according to their rules (which
> > should at least match the 3 +1 / majority rule requirements)
> > 2) at least one PMC member must vote +1 (usually the mentor)
> Well.. let's call this the "expedited" form of release. It leaves the
> PPMC a bit more self-suf
12 matches
Mail list logo
