+1 to IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process for voting in new committers (one question, would they need
an ACK from IPMC - similar to how PMC's send a note to the board for an ACK for new pmc members)?
In the 2nd question, "significant committers", are we asking mentors to identify such candidates for addition to IPMC,
especially release managers for example? if so, +1 for that as well.
thanks,
dims
On 08/11/2010 01:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
So. Following some advice given to me by Sam Ruby,
I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational
and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in
here. What I want to do is to see how far I can push
the envelope on the whole notion of empowerment and
self-governance in an incubating project, following the
lessons I've learned from httpd's treatment of the subprojects
it happens to be responsible for.
The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for
the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that
the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process
for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the clock
to May 1, 2007 on guides/ppmc.html.
The second idea is more controversial: to hold IPMC votes to
admit all significant committers to those projects to the IPMC
itself. The purpose of this concept is to allow those who
best know the codebase to provide IPMC oversight over it,
especially as it pertains to releases.
I welcome your comments, criticisms, and other feedback.
Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
