[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [dsdp-pmc] Re: the portal and election approval by the PMC

I like the concept, but the numbers would depend on the size and responsiveness of your PMC. But for other PMCs, this should probably be discussed in a more general forum anyway ;)


Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com

From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:00 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] Re: the portal and election approval by the PMC


I vote for keeping this simple.  Let’s do it just like sub-project committer elections:


1 week time limit

Minimum of three +1 votes to approve with no vetos.


I don’t see a need to exclude the project lead.  It sends a message that we don’t trust the project lead. 


From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:52 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] Re: the portal and election approval by the PMC


Hi Bjorn,


I think the goal of the discussion was to initiate and allow some discussion among the PMC before the vote was carved in stone.


I could imagine that a PMC voting period of e.g. 3 days might suffice.


My personal opinion is that I'm ok with any single PMC member approving on behalf of the whole PMC, but any other PMC should be able to veto that later on. This might be facilitated by the Portal sending out a note when PMC vote is requested, another note when a single PMC member has voted, such that Vetos can also be conducted on the Portal after the fact.

Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member



From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:47 PM
To: dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] Re: the portal and election approval by the PMC

DSDP PMC Members,
I noticed the discussion about the portal and the PMC approving elections. I would like the portal to support the behavior you'd like, so I/we are willing to change the portal to require full PMC votes for DSDP _however_ please be careful of what you ask for:

  • What if a PMC member is on vacation? Does this delay the approval until they return to vote?
  • Is there a time limit for PMC votes? You'll find that most committer elections run to the full time limit of a week because at least one committer doesn't bother to vote, so if you do the same for PMC votes, you'll be adding another week to each election.
  • Etc.

Perhaps what you'd like is "any single PMC member can approve an election *except* the PMC member who is on the sub-project of the election?"

And, as to the confusion of titles, we're open to ideas. We chose the same title for the interface panels because we felt that each of the panels was about the same thing: the committer election of person X. But if there's a better idea, let us know (best to submit a bug against the portal).  Note: you can see the whole committer election workflow here: https://dev.eclipse.org/portal/myfoundation/tests/swim.php?file=finished/committer_election.txt

- Bjorn

Yeah, for some reason, it only takes one PMC member to approve committer votes on the portal. Although with the Tools PMC, it’s likely we’d only get one vote anyway ;).

We should probably ask the EMO to fix this and allow for real PMC votes.