Tony, I agree with the points you raise and the completeness of the perspective you share. I do think we should add to that a focus on licensing and legal aspects.
- The individual has shown an effort to aid the community in producing release which are consistent with ASF licensing requirements and the guidance followed in the Apache NiFi community to adhere to those policies. This understanding could be shown when introducing new dependencies (including transitive) by ensuring that all licensing and notice updates have occurred. Another good example is flagging potentially copyrighted or insufficiently cited items like Skora found recently in the Kafka tests. One of our most important jobs as a community is to put out legal releases and that is certainly a team effort! Thanks Joe On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for starting this Tony! > > As a PMC member, I really try to focus on things that help the > community where we tend to have limited bandwidth: reviews weigh > heavily, as does helping out new folks on users@, and doing public > talking/workshops. > > I also am inclined to vote in favor of folks who show the kind of > project dedication that we expect from PMC members. While we still > need to do a better job of describing those things, at the moment I'm > thinking of things like voting on release candidates, watching out for > our trademarks, and investing the time needed to handle our licensing > responsibilities. > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Tony Kurc <tk...@apache.org> wrote: >> First off, I recommend this reading this page to understand what the Apache >> NiFi PMC draws from when making a decision >> >> http://community.apache.org/contributors/index.html >> >> I thought it would be helpful for me to walk through how I interpret that >> guidance, and what that means for NiFi. For those that didn't read, there >> are four aspects of contribution that are worth considering someone for >> committership: community, project, documentation and code. Really, the >> committer decision comes down to: has this person built up enough merit in >> the community that I have a high degree of confidence that I trust him/her >> with write access to the code and website. >> >> Given that merit and trust are subjective measures, how does the PMC make >> those decisions? We, the PMC, have attempted to make this as evidence-based >> as possible. When discussing a contributor for being considered for >> committer access, we attempt to put together a corpus of interaction in the >> community, both negative and positive, and use this as a basis for >> discussion. The interaction with the community can include: >> >> - Interaction on the mailing lists - is this person helping others? Is this >> person using the community to enhance his/her understanding of the project >> or the apache foundation? >> - Code contributions - is this person contributing code that advances the >> project? How important is the code? Is this a niche capability, a core >> capability? How challenging was the code? Was the code improving the >> quality of the project (bug fix, adding tests, or code that comes along >> with comprehensive unit and/or integration tests). How does this person >> react to criticism of his/her contribution? Is this person reacting >> positively to patch or pull request feedback? Is the code high quality? >> - Assisting others with their contributions - is this person providing >> useful comments on pull requests or patches? Is this person testing new >> features/functionality and providing feedback on the mailing list? >> - Participating in project votes and discussions: is this person helping to >> verify releases? Providing input to the roadmap? Is this person using the >> lists to get feedback on features he/she plan to implement? >> - Documentation contributions - is this person helping the community by >> blogging? providing patches to the web page or in-app docs? contributing to >> the project wiki? >> - Other community/project activities - has this person organized or talked >> at a meetup? has this person briefed at a conference or workshop? >> - "Going over and beyond" factor - Has this person done something >> exceptional to demonstrate dedication to the project? e.g. did this person >> go to great lengths to fix or diagnose a critical issue? >> >> An underlying theme of the above: the ASF code of conduct [1] is taken >> seriously by the PMC - while interacting with the community, was this >> person adhering to the guidelines? Are we seeing a pattern of openness, >> empathy, inquisitiveness, and willingness to cooperate? Has this person >> shown remorse for interaction that may have violated the code of conduct >> and a positive trend since? >> >> It helps for a committer to have evidence supporting all four aspects of >> contribution. It also helps to have demonstrated this over an extended >> period of time. I personally like to see at least 3 months of strong >> contribution. >> >> This is a start of the discussion, I'm hoping others can weigh in. >> >> 1. http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html >> >> Tony
