qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kelly, Brian" <BRIAN.KE...@iona.com>
Subject RE: Mentor Response Reqd: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
Date Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:35:12 GMT
+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:07 AM
To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cctrieloff@redhat.com; James Strachan; pzf@apache.org
Subject: Mentor Response Reqd: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private
list)

Cliff & All,

I'd like to suggest that we timebound the PPMC process discussion.

Qpid needs a PPMC assembled to facilitate an M1 release prior to some of
the
more significant work on the java broker (see the project JIRA for an
idea
of the work in the pipeline).

There are existing users out there using Qpid and we need to build an
Apache
release to support them going forward. I'd like to see M1 in November if
possible (see the release page on our wiki for info).

To that end, I'd propose that we allow until end of day (US) on Tuesday
24th
October for input from the other project mentors on the process.

After that point, we should proceed to constituting the PPMC imho.

*James/Paul* - please let us know what you think of Cliff's process ?

Thanks & Regards,
Marnie

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
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message