With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make votes we call binding on matters of their own project. Under the pTLP proposal they will not have this unless they happen to already be part of the Apache membership. I don't find it a distinction without a difference. I think it withholds an ownership stake in the process. All of this may be word games on some level, but words do matter.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > What makes you think the PPMC today had more influence than the > contributors to a pushing? > > Votes have been mentioned, but votes remain the same. Despite what people > on this thread are saying PPMC members do not have a binding vote. That > does not change. > > Besides, the whole thing is moot because pTLP is an *option* > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ > From: Andrew Purtell<mailto:apurt...@apache.org> > Sent: 1/23/2015 6:09 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: Re: my pTLP view > > You are approaching this question with complete trust and faith in the > Apache process, being an Apache member, but an incoming / foreign community > will not have this, not universally. Take the emotion out of this, because > I certainly am not being emotional here, but instead trying to evaluate > this change from the perspective of an outsider. I assume the objective is > to be and remain an inviting place for building community and code, > attracting new blood. > > I think everyone can accept an organization has a Board with a final say. > What I find attractive about the current incubation model is Apache > welcomes new communities by making them voting stakeholders in their new > project, they become a PPMC, a podling. Sure, the IPMC provides oversight, > and the board again, but the PPMC can make binding votes on committers, > releases, everything that matters - provisionally, of course, which is > completely acceptable. This all changes if the PMC does not include any > members of the incoming community. There isn't even a provisional ownership > stake in the endeavor. When Apache grants the incoming community a > provisional binding stake in the process, this establishes trust. > > I don't agree that the chances ASF PMC members of pTLP will start actively > overriding votes is slim to none. I've been around here for a while and > spent some time in Hadoop land. The process is not infallable. The > membership is not infallable. To ensure the probability of better outcomes > no matter what happens during an incubation, the incoming community should > be treated more like partners in a common endeavor with a full stake in the > process than what is proposed here. > > > > > The incoming community is disempowered and has no recourse but to go along > with the outcome of Apache politics or abandon the project. > > How is this not true? What can the incoming community make a binding vote > on, under this proposal? > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > Those of us in such a new incoming community might get the commit bit > but > > > can't vote on adding committers, > > > > See my reply to Jan. C == PPMC solves this completely. > > > > > or making releases. > > > > This is *exactly* what is happening today with every single poddling. > > Why are you bringing this up as a *new* concern around pTLP? > > > > > We don't have a > > > binding vote on our own committership / fate / ability to manage our > own > > > sources. > > > > I'll be a stickler here: literally the only new issue that doesn't > > exist today is that there won't be a by-law guaranteeing community > > that they can *override* ASF members vote on new committers. That is it! > > Everything else stays *exactly* the same. Not a single change > > to how IPMC *rules* are structured. > > > > > This situation is primed for mistrust, conflict, and heartache the > > > second the members and the incoming community disagree about some > > > substantial aspect of the project direction. The incoming community is > > > disempowered and has no recourse but to go along with the outcome of > > Apache > > > politics or abandon the project. As a responsible steward of my > > community, > > > I would never consider bringing my project to Apache under these > > > circumstances. > > > > Wow! This is a pretty gross overstatement if you ask me. Remember, > > all of the above is predicated on a *single* possibility. Not even a > > guarantee a *possibility*. That ASF PMC members of pTLP will start > > actively overriding votes on adding new members to the community. > > This is literally *the only* power they will be getting that doesn't > > exist in IPMC today. > > > > The chances of that are slim to none, so I have no choice but to call > > the above a strawman. > > > > > This may also increase the risk a project is coming here due to an > > > excessive fascination with the Apache brand, because otherwise the > > bargain > > > seems poor (in my view). > > > > Like I said -- we won't know until we try. We will try with *willing* > > participants. If they like it and if the board likes it -- we will start > > migrating folks. If not -- we'll stop. > > > > Thanks, > > Roman. > > > > P.S. This is my time to apologize for harsh tone. But really? Really: > > " > > > > The incoming community is disempowered and has no recourse > > but to go along with the outcome of Apache politics or abandon the > > project." > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
