Bryan, That is a good point and I do think we should avoid putting such a rule/requirement in place. However, practically speaking I would imagine that is how it will play out most often.
I've taken the comments of this thread largely based on Tony's excellent start and created a draft wiki page for it here [1]. If discussion remains on track then I'll assume lazy consensus and remove the draft notice. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Progression+from+user+to+Project+Management+Committee Thanks Joe On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>
