So are we saying as a community that a contributor has to first become a committer, and then only after continued consistent engagement could then be considered for PMC?
I don't have any issue with that approach, although it is not exactly what I thought when we first created the two tiers. On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
