I propose that the individual has the right to ask for PMC membership
at a later date, without a PMC vote, since all the necessary steps to
make them PMC have been done. In the invitation, we can include
verbiage like "Your merit never expires and you can take this offer up
any time you wish."
I've not seen any other project do that, but it would work.
The PMC chair would need to craft the wording of the emails: starting
a vote on the private list, announcing the result on the private list,
notice to the board, and inviting the contributor. They could do this
the first time that a vote
+1 to Nga's suggestion of default single tier including PMC membership with
individual option to opt-out and receive committer-ship only.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 4:18 PM Nga Chung wrote:
> Thanks Riley, Julian.
>
> I wonder if it would make sense to go with the one tier, but
> optionally allow
Thanks Riley, Julian.
I wonder if it would make sense to go with the one tier, but
optionally allow the invitee to opt out of PMC membership if they only
want committership. This way we keep it simple, but also don't scare
away potential contributors if PMC membership appears like more
I'm personally in favor of the two-tier solution as I think it would be more
suitable for
growing our community. As Julian said it's a lower barrier to entry.
On 2024/01/16 22:53:38 Julian Hyde wrote:
> In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC):
> * People perceive that
In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC):
* People perceive that there are two tiers to the project (and assume that the
PMC is doing something nefarious, when in fact it is usually, quite correctly,
doing very little).
* Simplicity.
In favor of two tiers (some
I think it's a distinction between project contributor and project management.
Probably not a big distinction at the moment because the SDAP community is still
relatively small, but that can change.
On 2024/01/16 22:47:12 Nga Chung wrote:
> I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking
I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future
committers / PMC members.
What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member?
Thanks,
Nga
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff wrote:
>
> Hi Julian,
>
> That makes a lot of sense as a better
Hi Julian,
That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination
process.
On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote:
> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in
> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an
> organizational
I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in
the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an
organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus,
could be all the process we need.
KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think
Hi all,
While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to have a
documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members (at least, none
that I could find). I think we should make an effort to establish and ratify a
process for this. I think the one outlined here
11 matches
Mail list logo
