On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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. > Without some more explanation I'm not that convinced about doing that. The main purpose of the IPMC is to vote on the graduation of poddlings, why should some random ASF poddling newbie get a binding vote on the graduation of _any_ poddling? I'm guessing the motivation for this proposal is not to give poddling committers binding votes on other poddling graduations but to give them binding votes on their own poddling activities, and that i agree with. The things they need binding votes on is their committer votes, ppmc votes (they already have that), and release votes - lets just give them those. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
