Ant,
My personal opinion (and i am hoping!) was that such individuals from ppmc's who end up in ipmc would help build bridges
between podlings and will help get lessons learned (when any ppmc has issues/problems/roadblocks) back to their ppmc.
This is one area where i've seen people struggle, folks from different projects learning the same lessons the hard way.
I am not too worried about "binding" vote one podling ppmc member have over another podling's release. the "binding" is
for me a legal thing (as in we need 3 binding ipmc votes for a release).
-- dims
On 08/11/2010 06:16 PM, ant elder wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
