[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [rt-pmc] Important: New best practices for approvals
|
This is a good idea, but it will not work easily in all places. E.g.
the tools for CQ approval would have to be amended, same for committer
approvals. It also seems to be a significant overhead if three people
from the pmc have to look at every single CQ. But for votes (not
approvals) this makes sense for me.
Jochen
Am 22.07.2009 um 17:00 schrieb Jesse McConnell:
why not simply require a minimum 3 [+1] votes over a minimal 72 hour
period?
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 05:03, Jochen
Krause<jkrause@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear fellow PMC members,
In our last PMC call we agreed on somewhat stricter governance best
practices for approvals:
"We will avoid PMC members being the sole approver for requests/
votes from
their own project."
That means that if a project that you are directly involved in is
looking
for a PMC approval for a CQ, a new committer, a release or any other
kind of
approval you should not be the sole approver of this request. In
those cases
where only one person approves (CQ, committers) you should abstain
from
voting. Usually approvals will happen within a week, if your
approval is
more urgent please convince another PMC member and have him approve
(first).
Jochen
###
Jochen Krause
EclipseSource
www.eclipsesource.com
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc