qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Fremantle" <pzf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
Date Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:45:25 GMT
+1 from me too.

Paul

PS I don't disagree with that definition of active either.

On 10/23/06, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1, sounds fine to me.
>
> On 10/20/06, Paul Fremantle <pzfreo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cliff
> >
> > I've read your note a couple of times.
> >
> > In summary it seems to say that:
> > 1. all *active* committers can join the PPMC
> > 2. they don't have to
> > 3. the mentors decide who is active
> >
> > Unless I missed something, I'm +1 on that.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On 10/19/06, Cliff Schmidt <cliffschmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'd first like to hear what the other mentors (James and Paul) think
> > > about the process/guidelines I've proposed.
> > >
> > > Cliff
> > >
> > > On 10/19/06, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Fremantle
> > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> >
> > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> > paul@wso2.com
> >
> > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Fremantle
> > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> >
> > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> > paul@wso2.com
> >
> > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> >
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>


-- 
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com

Mime
View raw message