Hi Rich, Thanks for sharing more documents.
It's interesting to find we writes: > all the way up to being a maintainer of the project IIRC when bringing the idea of "maintainer" in this list it received different ideas [1]. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/xsjojmksqtnsdjcg0yf4vz0xy82llhmw For this thread that brings the feeling bias on "promotion", I feel that we may softly accept the expressions while different people may understand and feel it differently. Back to what The Apache Way writes: > Community of Peers: individuals participate at the ASF, not organizations. The ASF’s flat structure dictates that roles are equal irrespective of title, votes hold equal weight, and contributions are made on a volunteer basis (even if paid to work on Apache code). The Apache community is expected to treat each other with respect in adherence to our Code of Conduct. Domain expertise is appreciated; Benevolent Dictators For Life are disallowed. More on individual participation. Now I read it emphasizes the volunteers of the ASF do not have additional power based on their affiliations. But within the ASF, there are specific roles who have commit bits or can cast binding votes that are privileges. To what Dirk wrote: > This may be a cultural/language thing - but for me, the word promotion, is something akin to a higher step of a ladder, higher up in a hierarchy - where your output, word, work, etc is of more value than that of others - and where you get to command and delegate. Or when a call is to be made - the one with the promition makes it - is -expected- to amke it. I agree with this. And the word "promotion" gives me the impression of a hierarchy in a company, while I see different roles in the ASF communities as a gravity model rather than a ladder. That is, you dedicate more (attracted by the project), rather than being above others. But this can be a cultural gap so we may not ask for a hard consensus on wording. Best, tison. Rich Bowen <[email protected]> 于2026年7月22日周三 21:24写道： > > > > On Jul 22, 2026, at 8:53 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On 22 Jul 2026, at 12:46, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 05:02 Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >>> First - I'd be wary of this as a concept - we are all volunteers -- > being > >>> asked to join the PMC is both a trust thing -and- also something of an > >>> imposition or burden on that volunteer. They get extra responsibility > and > >>> work. So - really -- not a promotion at all. > >> > >> Surely that's literally what a promotion is? What's a job promotion - > more > >> responsibility and work along with extra trust or privilege. > > > > This may be a cultural/language thing - but for me, the word promotion, > is something akin to a higher step of a ladder, higher up in a hierarchy - > where your output, word, work, etc is of more value than that of others - > and where you get to command and delegate. Or when a call is to be made - > the one with the promition makes it - is -expected- to amke it. > > Yes. And that is exactly the case with committers and PMC members. And we > *explicitly* call it a ladder on the community.apache.org < > http://community.apache.org/> website. > https://community.apache.org/contributor-ladder.html This is language > that is used across the entire open source ecosystem. > > https://ospoglossary.todogroup.org/contributor-ladder/ > > > https://contribute.cncf.io/projects/best-practices/community/contributor-growth/incentivizing-contributors/ > > > https://forum.opensearch.org/t/proposal-contributor-ladder-aka-how-can-someone-become-a-maintainer/5759 > > I don’t see this as derogatory in any way. It’s encouragement for > contributors to become owners. It’s the incentive we offer for that > ownership. > > I don’t think any first-time contributor expects that their contributions > will be accepted blindly without skepticism. They have to earn that trust. > This is pretty central to our messaging at the ASF, and always has been. > Merit is earned. We use that phrasing everywhere and have for decades. > > That does not mean, though, that the work is of more *value*, simply that > the trust hasn’t been earned yet. We *should* encourage people to earn > trust, and not expect that on day one they’ll be trusted with the reins. > They have to grow up to that. We all started at that level. > > > > > They are sort of the opposite of a merit/expertise specialist of > volunteers all doing peer to peer what each is good at / contributes to. > > I disagree. Committers *do* have more merit, because they have > demonstrated and earned it. That’s what becoming a committer acknowledges. > I’m not sure why we would want to downplay that. > > > > >> Promotion never means that you're somehow a better or more valuable > person, > >> does it? In what context would it mean that? > > > > It may not mean that in American -- but to my foreign ear - that is > exactly how it echos - a person that is `somehow more, better, etc' > > Well, they are more. They have more trust, more merit, more experience, > and more ownership. > > “Better” is a loaded word here, and not one that I would use. But they > have demonstrated leadership, trust, and ownership. Those that do the work > *do* get to make the decisions. They *do* get more authority. They are, in > fact, more. That doesn’t mean that other contributors are somehow > incompetent or terrible or bad, just that they have not demonstrated that > ownership and trust yet. > > We use the phrase “those that do the work get to make the decisions” > across all of our ASF discussions, and, again, have for decades. The term > “Do-ocracy” is another one that we’ve used. Everyone has the opportunity to > get those promotions, they just haven’t yet. That doesn’t make them better > or worse. It makes them new or experienced. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
