Tony, There appears to be consensus around these thoughts. Perhaps we should document this on a Wiki page?
I think generally for committer status it would be good to see a number of these things for a period of time and then for PMC status to see those contributions continue and ideally expand for a longer duration. Another few months? Thanks Joe On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
