Looks like a good set of information and listing of capacities in which the community can contribute for progression.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> >
