Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a concern about item 2. It has been my experience that the Incubator
PMC can be a bit tardy in replying to emails. May I suggest that the 72 hour
window starts w/ item 1? Given that, then item 2 seems superfluous.
Well, given that we haven't tried this policy, I don't think it's fair
to say that the Incubator PMC will be tardy on issuing the ACK -
that'd be a fine complaint to make if you witness it after the policy
is in effect.
I can extrapolate from past behavior on important podling votes. My
reservations are fair and based on past behavior.
The Incubator PMC is delegated with the authority to approve code
imports. No other PMCs have the authority to approve code imports or
podling creation.
I agree with your statement about code imports but I didn't realize that
they could stop a podling from being created. IIUC, the Incubator PMC
has final say on graduation but not on initiation. Am I wrong in this
understanding?
My next concern is in regard to 3. It implies that if the Incubator PMC does
not positively vote for the incubation, then it does not get incubated. IIUC,
the Incubator PMC cannot block the start of the incubation of a project that
has been sponsored by another PMC. Maybe that changed, I may have missed that
exchange.
By and large, I would not expect #3 (someone saying 'no') to happen
very much. The only valid complaints are about the form and
procedures being followed. All other complaints by Incubator PMC
members about a podling (such as that they don't like technology
'foo') should be bit-bucketed. If people try to vote against a
podling sponsored by another PMC because of personal non-procedural
reasons, they're going to get hit with a cluebat. -- justin
While I agree that this would be unlikely and that common sense should
govern the behavior of good cooperative communities, are we not writing
policy?
Regards,
Alan
