qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
Date Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:48:04 GMT

Cliff,


I am happy with this process, would the next step be to put names 
forward to
be voted into the PPMC?

Regards
Carl.




Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I'm finally getting back to the PPMC discussion (see below for a
> reminder of where we left off)...
>
> Some of you may have read some of the debate about how to set up the
> PPMC on the general@incubator list a few weeks ago (if you're a
> committer, you really should  be subscribed to that list -- lots you
> can learn from even just lurking).  There are still a few opinions on
> how to do things, but here is my proposal for this project:
>
> - Each mentor is a member of the PPMC.
>
> - All committers should have the opportunity to be members of the
> PPMC, because I believe much of the purpose is to learn how PMCs work.
>
> - Any committer who would rather just limit their participation to
> committing code without being involved in broader project issues
> should not feel at all obligated to become part of the PPMC.  To be on
> a PMC is work on behalf of the Foundation -- not everyone wants to do
> that, which is fine.  A PPMC is not quite a PMC, but it's the same
> idea.
>
> - Any committer who has not really been participating in the project
> should not ask to me part of the PPMC.  I'd suggest such folks spend
> some time contributing to the project first.  I would also discourage
> people from asking to become part of the PPMC if they aren't expecting
> to contribute to the discussions.  I think this is especially
> important when the idea is to learn how PMCs work, which is much
> easier done when you are participating, rather than just lurking and
> occasionally voting.
>
> - As far as process goes, I'd like to just follow Noel's suggestion
> below and have the mentors vote in the PPMC members.  As one of the
> mentors, I've described how I will vote above.  I'd be interested in
> hearing whether the other mentors have concerns or a completely
> different idea.  Otherwise, I'd suggest that each committer consider
> my comments above and then nominate yourself if you still feel you
> want to/should be on the PPMC.
>
> Cliff
>
>
> On 9/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
>> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> > here's the question:
>>
>> >   should every committer automatically be a member of the PPMC?
>>
>> >   Or should only a smaller set of committers (the people most
>> >   directly responsible for most of the existing work to date)
>> >   be on the PPMC until they vote to bring in others?
>>
>> > My personal opinion is that every committer should be on the PPMC so
>> > that they better understand and have the opportunity to play a part
>> > in that aspect of Apache.
>>
>> > However, I think the other point of view is quite reasonable (which I
>> > believe is held by the chair of the Incubator, Noel Bergman).
>>
>> Actually, I really don't care.  What I have said is that 
>> structurally, the
>> initial PPMC consists of the mentors, and we bootstrap: they vote on 
>> whom
>> they feel should belong on the PPMC.  Whether that is a few people or
>> everyone isn't my concern.  My issue is purely procedural, leaving the
>> policy in the hands of each set of Mentors.
>>
>> Now, technically, any vote effecting the ASF (new Commmitter or Release)
>> counts only votes from the PMC, which is why the Incubator PMC needs 
>> to be
>> informed of the vote, and why I keep pushing to have at least three (3)
>> Mentors per project, so that each can more easily muster sufficient 
>> votes.
>>
>> I hope that my position is clearer now.
>>
>>         --- Noel


Mime
View raw message