[VOTE] 72-hour lazy consensus for podling committer + PPMC member votes (was: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes...)

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
"Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .

There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
members are required.

That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:

> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the PPMC are
> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If the vote is
> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the proposer...

So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
so that we can clarify this and move on.

-Bertrand

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<justin@...> wrote:

> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> ---
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> ---
> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC.  *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> the receipt of the vote.  This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> consensus.  After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> invitation process.*
> ---
>
> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> full ASF board.  I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> as well for Incubation, so there.  I don't like needless 'dual
> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> oversight.
>
> WDYT?    -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Martijn Dashorst]

+1

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacretaz@...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
> "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
>
> There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
> that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
> members are required.
>
> That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
>
>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the PPMC are
>> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If the vote is
>> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the proposer...
>
> So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
> so that we can clarify this and move on.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> <justin@...> wrote:
>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
>> ---
>>
>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC.  *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
>> the receipt of the vote.  This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
>> consensus.  After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
>> invitation process.*
>> ---
>>
>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
>> full ASF board.  I like the concept of expanding this for committers
>> as well for Incubation, so there.  I don't like needless 'dual
>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
>> oversight.
>>
>> WDYT?    -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[dims]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1

Martijn Dashorst wrote:
| +1
|
| On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
| <bdelacretaz@...> wrote:
|> Hi,
|>
|> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
|> "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
|> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
|>
|> There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
|> that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
|> members are required.
|>
|> That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
|> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
|>
|>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the PPMC are
|>> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If the vote is
|>> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the proposer...
|> So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
|> so that we can clarify this and move on.
|>
|> -Bertrand
|>
|> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
|> <justin@...> wrote:
|>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
|>> ---
|>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
|>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
|>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
|>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
|>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
|>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
|>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
|>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
|>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
|>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
|>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
|>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
|>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
|>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
|>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
|>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
|>> ---
|>>
|>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
|>> ---
|>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
|>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
|>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
|>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
|>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
|>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
|>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
|>> vote threads by the PPMC.  *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
|>> the receipt of the vote.  This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
|>> consensus.  After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
|>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
|>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
|>> invitation process.*
|>> ---
|>>
|>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
|>> full ASF board.  I like the concept of expanding this for committers
|>> as well for Incubation, so there.  I don't like needless 'dual
|>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
|>> oversight.
|>>
|>> WDYT?    -- justin
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
|> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|>
|>
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFIX4W5gNg6eWEDv1kRAgR6AJ44JfQm/Fw4tLlcziLNMiQUIZRatwCfU2H7
2hhRwZXv1mUmsnfd6y6vAWw=
=xfO0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Luciano Resende]

+1 (non-binding)

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> | +1
> |
> | On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> | <bdelacretaz@...> wrote:
> |> Hi,
> |>
> |> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
> |> "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
> |> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
> |>
> |> There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
> |> that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
> |> members are required.
> |>
> |> That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
> |> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
> |>
> |>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by the
> PPMC are
> |>> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the nominee. If
> the vote is
> |>> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the
> proposer...
> |> So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
> |> so that we can clarify this and move on.
> |>
> |> -Bertrand
> |>
> |> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> |> <justin@...> wrote:
> |>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> |>> ---
> |>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> |>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> |>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> |>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> |>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> |>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> |>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> |>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there are
> |>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
> |>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
> |>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
> |>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
> |>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
> |>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
> |>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
> |>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
> |>> ---
> |>>
> |>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> |>> ---
> |>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> |>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> |>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> |>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> |>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> |>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> |>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> |>> vote threads by the PPMC.  *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> |>> the receipt of the vote.  This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> |>> consensus.  After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> |>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> |>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> |>> invitation process.*
> |>> ---
> |>>
> |>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
> |>> full ASF board.  I like the concept of expanding this for committers
> |>> as well for Incubation, so there.  I don't like needless 'dual
> |>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
> |>> oversight.
> |>>
> |>> WDYT?    -- justin
> |> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> |> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> |> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> |>
> |>
> |
> |
> |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
>
> iD8DBQFIX4W5gNg6eWEDv1kRAgR6AJ44JfQm/Fw4tLlcziLNMiQUIZRatwCfU2H7
> 2hhRwZXv1mUmsnfd6y6vAWw=
> =xfO0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Craig L Russell]

-1

The proposed process improves on the existing process by aligning it  
better with the process by which a PMC communicates with the board.

But as I've said earlier, there is no indication here that three +1  
votes are needed from incubator PMC members.

It makes people crazy if they have to look in multiple places to find  
what they need to do. This paragraph should make it clear what a  
successful vote would be.

 From the discussion earlier, there would have to be three +1 votes  
from incubator PMC members prior to a lazy vote. And there's no  
discussion of what the process is if there are not three binding +1  
votes in the PPMC.

Needs work.

Craig

On Jun 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below, to change the
> "Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list.." paragraph at
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html .
>
> There were lots of +1s in the original thread, and a minor concern
> that this does not explicitely that 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC
> members are required.
>
> That concern is addressed by the text that follows this paragraph on
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html:
>
>> Only votes cast by Incubator PMC members are binding, but votes by  
>> the PPMC are
>> very important. The entire PPMC should show support for the  
>> nominee. If the vote is
>> positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes),  
>> the proposer...
>
> So I think Justin's proposal is good to go - please cast your votes,
> so that we can clarify this and move on.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> <justin@...> wrote:
>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC. The Incubator vote is done even if there  
>> are
>> three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members during the PPMC vote, in
>> order to give all Incubator PMC members a chance to express their
>> support or disapproval after seeing the PPMC discussion and vote
>> results. Note that only the Incubator PMC members can see the
>> Incubator private discussion, and the podling's Mentors should review
>> all Incubator PMC feedback with the PPMC. Moreover, only Apache
>> members may review the private PPMC list (this is normally not an
>> issue since most Incubator PMC members are Apache members).
>> ---
>>
>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
>> ---
>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>> vote threads by the PPMC.  *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
>> the receipt of the vote.  This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
>> consensus.  After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC  
>> member
>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
>> invitation process.*
>> ---
>>
>> This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt
>> full ASF board.  I like the concept of expanding this for committers
>> as well for Incubation, so there.  I don't like needless 'dual
>> voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute
>> oversight.
>>
>> WDYT?    -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@...
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

[Noel J. Bergman]

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below

There is the missing nuance that must be addressed (see below), but with that fixed, I'm +1.

> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> > Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
> > ---
> > Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> > Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> > vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> > podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> > practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> > calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> > discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> > vote threads by the PPMC.

> > I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
> > ---
> > Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
> > Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
> > vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
> > podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
> > practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
> > *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> > discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> > vote threads by the PPMC.  *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
> > the receipt of the vote.  This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
> > consensus.  After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
> > for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
> > approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
> > invitation process.*

As has been noted, the text of Justin's proposal fails to address that if the vote fails to gain the required binding votes, it is NOT lazy consensus.  The standard rules still apply, and the PMC vote would be required to supplement the vote, not just a lazy ratification.

Proposed change to Justin's text would be "After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, and if the vote is positive (three or more binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes), the committer request is approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer invitation process."

        --- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Noel J. Bergman]

Craig,

> -1

> But as I've said earlier, there is no indication here that three +1
> votes are needed from incubator PMC members.

> Needs work.

I agree with your concerns, but how do you feel with the amendment I
posted a few minutes ago?

        --- Noel

[dkulp]

On Jun 23, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>
> As has been noted, the text of Justin's proposal fails to address  
> that if the vote fails to gain the required binding votes, it is NOT  
> lazy consensus.  The standard rules still apply, and the PMC vote  
> would be required to supplement the vote, not just a lazy  
> ratification.
>
> Proposed change to Justin's text would be "After 72 hours and no  
> requests by any Incubator PMC member for a full vote by the  
> Incubator PMC, and if the vote is positive (three or more binding +1  
> votes and no binding -1 votes), the committer request is approved by  
> the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer invitation  
> process."

Umm... why "no binding -1 votes"?   I thought adding a committer  
wasn't a vetoable thing, just code modifications.   This should be a  
majority approval vote thing. (with it linked to http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval 
  for details)


Dan

>
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@...
http://www.dankulp.com/blog





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Craig L Russell]

Noel's proposed change to Justin's proposed change is better but I'd  
prefer that the process be crisper in the case that the PPMC vote  
fails to get the required three PMC member votes.

<proposed>
Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the
vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
practice.

After completing the vote on the PPMC list, if there are three
or more binding (incubator PMC member) votes, the proposer
*sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
vote threads by the PPMC.  *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
the receipt of the vote.  This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
consensus.  After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member
for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
invitation process.*

If there are not three binding votes in the PPMC vote,  the proposer  
calls a vote
on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
vote threads by the PPMC.
</proposed>

Craig

On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> I'd like to ask for a vote on Justin's proposal below
>
> There is the missing nuance that must be addressed (see below), but  
> with that fixed, I'm +1.
>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
>>> Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have:
>>> ---
>>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding  
>>> the
>>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>>> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>>> vote threads by the PPMC.
>
>>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to:
>>> ---
>>> Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the
>>> Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding  
>>> the
>>> vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the
>>> podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best
>>> practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer
>>> *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
>>> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
>>> vote threads by the PPMC.  *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK
>>> the receipt of the vote.  This starts a 72-hour window for lazy
>>> consensus.  After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC  
>>> member
>>> for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is
>>> approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer
>>> invitation process.*
>
> As has been noted, the text of Justin's proposal fails to address  
> that if the vote fails to gain the required binding votes, it is NOT  
> lazy consensus.  The standard rules still apply, and the PMC vote  
> would be required to supplement the vote, not just a lazy  
> ratification.
>
> Proposed change to Justin's text would be "After 72 hours and no  
> requests by any Incubator PMC member for a full vote by the  
> Incubator PMC, and if the vote is positive (three or more binding +1  
> votes and no binding -1 votes), the committer request is approved by  
> the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer invitation  
> process."
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@...
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

[Craig L Russell]

Hi Noel,

Almost there. I've posted an update to your update.

Thanks,

Craig

On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Craig,
>
>> -1
>
>> But as I've said earlier, there is no indication here that three +1
>> votes are needed from incubator PMC members.
>
>> Needs work.
>
> I agree with your concerns, but how do you feel with the amendment I
> posted a few minutes ago?
>
> --- Noel

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@...
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

[Noel J. Bergman]

Craig Russell wrote:

> Noel's proposed change to Justin's proposed change is better but I'd
> prefer that the process be crisper in the case that the PPMC vote
> fails to get the required three PMC member votes.

OK.  But I find it difficult to see precisely what change(s) you're
proposing to the text compared to Justin's w/ my amendment.  Is it just
ensuring that this:

> If there are not three binding votes in the PPMC vote,  the proposer
> calls a vote on the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the
> discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and
> vote threads by the PPMC.

is present in the final result?  And perhaps we should cc the PMC votes to
the PPMC, so that the record can be seen in one place.

Would you mind posting a patch to the existing text so that we can see the
entire and precise change(s) to be made?

        --- Noel

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Umm... why "no binding -1 votes"?   I thought adding a committer wasn't
> a vetoable thing, just code modifications.   This should be a majority
> approval vote thing. (with it linked to
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval for
> details)

A -1 should be triggering a proper review of the objection.  If it's legit,
several +1's will become -1's, but understanding why that vote was cast
(maybe obstructionism, maybe personal bias, maybe an unhealthy community)
will help the incubator understand if the project is on track to graduate
and manage itself.

So the "no binding -1's" just triggers a proper review and vote, no longer
just lazy consensus.  It doesn't happen often and needs to be reviewed.

Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Craig L Russell]

I've updated https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57 with  
the changes proposed by Justin, Noel, and Bill. Please take a look.

Craig

On Jun 23, 2008, at 12:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> Umm... why "no binding -1 votes"?   I thought adding a committer  
>> wasn't a vetoable thing, just code modifications.   This should be  
>> a majority approval vote thing. (with it linked to http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval 
>>  for details)
>
> A -1 should be triggering a proper review of the objection.  If it's  
> legit,
> several +1's will become -1's, but understanding why that vote was  
> cast
> (maybe obstructionism, maybe personal bias, maybe an unhealthy  
> community)
> will help the incubator understand if the project is on track to  
> graduate
> and manage itself.
>
> So the "no binding -1's" just triggers a proper review and vote, no  
> longer
> just lazy consensus.  It doesn't happen often and needs to be  
> reviewed.
>
> Bill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@...
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!