On 21/06/2023 19:57, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
Member of the cassandra PMC, but responding here individually. I'm not actually sure I
actually support the idea of an MVP program, but do want to point out that
"PMC" has other special meaning:
- A member of the PMC is (or at least was, and if it's changed, I missed it)
strictly required to be a committer. We've had threads in the past about
whether or not there was room for flexibility, and structurally the answer was
no. That's a problem because:
- Committer requires signing an ICLA. That's a problem because:
- Not all community members CAN sign an ICLA. Some are prevented from doing so
by employment restrictions or other legal requirements. So even if it were the
case that SOMEONE might be the type of contributor who a project WOULD make a
member of the PMC, some individuals CAN NOT accept that.
Yes, that is an issue. It would be interesting to get some numbers on
how often that happens and whether there is anything the ASF can do to
help reduce the frequency - e.g. engagement with employers. Probably a
topic for a separate thread.
Regardless, it is pretty much inevitable given the size of the ASF that
there will be some people that can't sign the ICLA and that is an issue
worth trying to address.
Note: Projects can invite whoever they like to join their private list.
It would be unusual but I can't think of any reason a project couldn't
have honorary PMC members (or similar name), subscribed to the private
list and their voices listened to as if there were PMC members - the
only difference being they would not be listed in committee-info.txt and
their votes would not be binding.
Beyond that:
The PMC is permanent, irrevocable, and binding.
Not quite. There are ways to remove bad actors from a PMC if necessary.
There are existence proofs of single bad actors on the PMC effectively blowing
up projects (I will show them to you if needed, but PMC members who veto every
single action and lead other contributors to fork).
Been there. Got the t-shirt. Several times. And I hope I never have to
go there again. It is never pretty, always stressful and damages the
community. That it is rare is both good and bad. It is good it doesn't
happen often but the downside is there is relatively little experience
of dealing with it to draw on if you find yourself in that situation.
"This person is doing cool things to help the community THIS YEAR" is not the same as
"please be a driving force of the project forever".
While there are bad actors, there represent a very small faction of the
community. I'd argue there is a greater risk of harm to the community by
having high bars for committership and PMC membership and excluding
folks than there is by having low bars and accepting the risk of a bad
actor.
On a personal level, I started working with Cassandra to solve a problem at
work, but I kept working on it because some company I had never heard of sent
me an email and a t-shirt that said MVP on it. I was nowhere NEAR the level of
contributions you'd need to be a committer, much less a member of the PMC (a
conference talk and a couple emails, no code contributed at all). It was a nice
marketing gesture for the project, and probably for the company (maybe they
assumed my employer would turn into a paying customer, which definitely wasnt
going to happen).
I think there is plenty of room for that sort of contributor
appreciation. Putting on my VP Brand hat for a minute, I have approved
companies producing project branded swag for exactly this purpose. The
main concern is making sure it is community swag rather than corporate swag.
All of that said: it feels weird. I can argue about why it's good and
important. It still feels weird. Emotionally, I don't love the idea, but we
also don't want affiliated companies running programs that may be misconstrued
as acting for the (trademarked) brand, and that's the typical place you'd see a
program like this. Microsoft has MVPs. AWS has community heroes. Apache
projects .... have merit within the project and within the foundation, but
again, permanent, binding, and requires contracts.
It looks as if there are a couple of different issues here (long term
contributors that can't sign the ICLA, wider contributor recognition as
a way to build community, maybeothers). I think there are solutions to
these issues that don't require creation of a parallel / alternative
system of recognizing merit.`
My main concern with a parallel system of merit recognition is that it
think it will encourage higher bars for committership and PMC membership
and that in turn is not good for the community.
Mark
On 2023/06/21 18:42:37 Mark Thomas wrote:
Melissa,
You haven't answered my question.
ASF projects already have a mechanism for rewarding contributions. Why
do they need a separate one?
Mark
On 21/06/2023 19:12, Melissa Logan wrote:
Hi Mark,
The goal is to provide documentation to projects on how to implement a
community-run MVP program, should any project decide to do so.
It would be optional and additive.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:07 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
Every project already has a system for recognizing contributors in the
community - making them a committer (then PMC member).
Why is there a need for a separate system?
Mark
On 21/06/2023 18:55, Melissa Logan wrote:
Hello CommDev people:
Is there precedent at ASF for a community-run MVP program? If not, would
anyone like to collaborate on this to help provide guidance to ASF
projects? And is CommDev the right place?
In a recent Cassandra Marketing Working Group meeting (1) we discussed
the
idea of a community-hosted MVP program that adheres to ASF governance.
MVP
programs reward people who are actively contributing to/promoting a
project
by designating them as "MVPs" and listing them on community channels
(e.g.
project website). It's a great way to get people onboarded/involved,
recruit committers, and grow awareness for a project. This would also
create more opportunities for non-code contributions to a project.
MVP would be a non-governing body (2); one would need to re-apply or be
nominated annually.
Each PMC would have to approve of the MVP program and be part of the MVP
Committee to select MVPs each year. For the first year, the committee
would include at least one PMC member, 3-5 active contributors that will
be
selected by the PMC member(s), and a program lead. In subsequent years,
the
committee would include PMC member(s), previous MVPs, and a program lead.
Doc below (3); feedback would be much appreciated. If you can't access
it,
let me know and I'll find another way to share. Thank you!
(1)
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/2023-06-07+Meeting
(2) https://www-paulau.staged.apache.org/foundation/governance/
(3)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19sExbQFMBvEJPjE_YaZNZAp54I14Ez0sooybqm800qA/edit#
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
