The small, easy to overlook, sentence is now two paragraphs.
<guide>Voting a new committer is one of the most important functions of any PMC, and the Incubator is no different. Only votes of Incubator PMC members are binding (counted) when considering a new committer. But the members of the PPMC, with direct oversight over the podling, are best able to judge the qualifications and suitability of a proposed new committer. Therefore, the process for voting a new committer into an Incubator podling is a bit more complex than voting a new committer into a Top Level Project.
The role of the PPMC in this process is recommendation to the Incubator PMC that one of the contributors to the podling is worthy of committership. The recommendation should reflect consensus of the PPMC. When it comes to voting, an affirmative vote of at least three Incubator PMC members is needed. Since the PPMC often contains only three Incubator PMC members (the podling's Mentors), the challenge for a PPMC to vote a new committer is to obtain three or more Incubator PMC members' votes. If all of the Mentors vote in favor of the new committer, the required number of votes is obtained, and the vote is submitted to the Incubator PMC for approval by acclamation (silent approval, or lazy consensus). But if during private voting in the PPMC, fewer than three Incubator PMC members vote, the conclusion of the PPMC vote can only be considered a recommendation, and the vote must be put to the Incubator PMC.
</guide> Let me know what you think. Or better, CTR the document yourself. ;-) Craig On Aug 24, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:There is always a lot of confusion on whose votes are binding in our podlings. The PPMC guide has a small, easy to overlook sentence which states the obviously not so obvious: "And note that binding votes are those cast by Incubator PMC members."Any objections to crafting such a document, and who would want to takethe lead? As this would be a guide, this would be CTR. IMO a structure would be something like this: Voting - when to vote - how to vote - whose vote is binding - when to nofify the Incubator PMCsounds good to me - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
