Chris A Mattmann wrote: > > Well, that's sufficient, Chris. There should be no "nice to have" aspect. > > The only requirement is that the PMC has the ability to oversee. If we can > > streamline that process, great.
> Yeah, I guess to me the PPMC mentors should be fine to oversee without > double checking with the IPMC. They should be fine, but the PMC still needs to have the opportunity to provide oversight. > The podling mentors represent the IPMC in my mind and should be its shepherds, > not those other IPMC folks who aren't participating in the day to day of the podling. People not participating should generally stay out of it unless necessary. Necessary might be: - not enough +1 votes, so please help - improper release packaging - something really out of whack Otherwise, get involved or butt out. :-) But until the project graduates, PMC members *can* have a say. Don't like it? Graduate faster! :-D >> The problem is that the PPMC has no standing. I keep telling people to stop >> using the term IPMC. It is the Incubator PMC. The terms IPMC and PPMC make >> them look somehow equivalent. > I guess that's what I take exception to, I think the PPMC _should_ have > standing. As per http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3, the defined governing entity is the Project Management Committee, better known as the PMC. And while the text does say that the PMC Chair "shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible", it is the accepted practice of the ASF that the PMC makes all decisions. > to me, podling mentors = IPMC* oversight, so if 3+ mentors approve, then that should be it IMHO. I'd say that 3+ Mentors *and* lazy consensus (which basically just means a notice requirement) of the PMC is sufficient. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
