qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Vinoski <vino...@iona.com>
Subject Re: Mentor Response Reqd: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
Date Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:28:38 GMT
+1

On Oct 20, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:

> 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