Hi Rich, I love every line of it … the only thing I would possibly “fine tune” in the text, would be to be a bit more explicit: “You must not already be a member of the PMC.” -> “You must not already be a member of the PMC that you wish to join as Sharpener.” Cause I was a bit confused which of the many PMCs involved you were talking about.
And: As we voted on that every Member can request to join the ComDev PMC, maybe simply add to the proposal, that if you want to be a Sharpener, that you simply ask to join the ComDev PMC. Other than that … count me in. Chris Von: MJ Foulks <foulks...@gmail.com> Datum: Freitag, 9. Februar 2024 um 17:02 An: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org> Betreff: Re: [WG: Sharpeners] Proposed - Sharpeners This is another great idea. You mentioned objections along the lines of "who are you to tell me what to do?" Most volunteers do better with some direction, rather than being told "just submit a PR" or "just contribute." Most volunteers, especially new volunteers such as myself, find that lack of direction frustrating. Lack of direction will lead to less active volunteers doing less work. Sharpeners can help provide direction without it having to come from a position of authority. I do agree that the Sharpener (even if a leader of the WG) should not have any higher authority than others. However, their position as a Sharpener should be recognized and respected, and their advice taken with their elevated role in mind. They are peers, but they are peers with a more broad view and more experience in their skill set. Advice can be taken or left, but a Sharpener's advice should, ideally, be given more thought and consideration. --MJ Foulks On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 10:33 AM Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 2024, at 10:18 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I like this proposal a lot, and would be happy to sharpen some pencil > mahogany cases, if allowed (unless this pun was so bad you have to decline > my offer). > > > > I do have one question, which is where this <private>...</private> > report bit would go, would that be entered into the comdev board report? > > > I think that’s a detail for the WG to work out, in conjunction with the > ComDev PMC and Chair, but my vision is that if/when any of these WGs start > producing actual work, we would add a WG section to the ComDev report, and > report on that work there. It’s an interesting question, though, because it > might imply that the WG lead must be a ComDev PMC member, so that they > *can* make these <private> comments. Or perhaps they just communicate with > the PMC Chair directly? I’m not sure. We cannot violate PMC confidentially, > whatever we do. > > *Ideally*, the comments/advice of an effective sharpener would also > influence things showing up in the individual PMC’s report, too, but there > will be cases where the Sharpener’s comments are about red flags in the > project, and they will be asking the board to look into it, escalate, or > whatever, since the Sharpener themself has no authority to do anything but > advise. > >
