commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Akolkar <>
Subject Re: Moving to proper [Was: Promote Compress to Commons Proper]
Date Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:01:20 GMT
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Henri Yandell <> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Rahul Akolkar <> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Niall Pemberton
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Rahul Akolkar <>
>>> I believe we've said in order for a component to be promoted we are
>>> looking for some expression of "commitment" (in quotes for obvious
>>> reasons) from folks to mitigate the risk of thrown over the wall and
>>> quickly orphaned components. I also believe we've had folks voting
>>> differently (while some may +1, others tend to +0). I think thats
>>> fine.
>> Yes I agree this is a valid concern for any promotion vote - but thats
>> not what Henri said and I think my point is still valid that if all
>> PMC members only voted +1 on promotions of components they plan to
>> contribute to then the sandbox may as well be shut down. Fortunatly
>> thats not the case so far in this vote.

I'm comfortable +1'ing promotions for sandbox components I intend to
follow, but not necessarily contribute to. I do not follow [compress]
at all, but it seems to be doing well as things whiz by me on the
list, so my +0.

IMO, the metric is 3 folks planning to follow a component's progress
(whether or not all of them are actively contributing code).


> Agreed on the need to get this right - that's partly why I voted that
> way. Personally I think this is a case where committer votes should be
> binding, not PMC. What we have is a project that, barring some large
> social disagreement we'll happily move to proper if it's had a short
> stabilization period (I'd be surprised at less than 6 months, but
> really this is just that the component has passed some undefined bar
> of happiness for our community) and it has 3+ committers.
> So ideally a minimum vote should be:  lots of +0s, and 3 +1s from the
> committers who will work on it. You're right that if we don't consider
> those as binding that votes will fall flat.
> So maybe the alternative is to list the committers explicitly who are
> supporting this component in the vote. Then I'll happily vote +1 on
> these votes as I'll know the actual vote is not the test for having 3+
> committers.
> Hen

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message