On 4/10/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:44:45AM +0100, James Strachan wrote: > > Just a reminder to the Incubator-PMC - could you please vote to > > approve this release. We had 5 votes from the Geronimo PMC within 24 > > hours of calling the vote and so far after 4 days we've just had one > > vote from the Incubator PMC (excluding myself who's in all camps). > > > > Given the inactivity of the Incubator-PMC on the ActiveMQ project > > (previous releases were met with similar levels vigourous support ;-) > > The apparent inability of the incubator PMC to vote sucks and is a further > indicator something is wrong
Agreed > but nevertheless I'm not going to +1 (or -1) > releases I haven't investigated in detail myself, so +0 from me. At least you voted - many thanks :) > > and given the activity of the Geronimo PMC in the project, maybe its > > time to consider graduating ActiveMQ? > > I think the inability of the incubator PMC to fulfill its duties should > not be an argument for or against graduation of a project under > incubation. Some problems should not be routed around. They should be > fixed. OK. So how about we broaden membership of the Incubator PMC to include anyone interested from another PMC (rather than just Apache Members only)? Or that members of the sponsoring PMC can be included as binding voters in the approval process of podling releases from the incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on their behalf. Either way the effect would be the same; allowing folks who are actually interested in a podling being able to approve its releases; with the Incubator PMC members still having a -1 if there is anything about the release they are unhappy with. -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
