FWIW, I don't read the current draft as requiring that someone strictly progress contributor -> committer -> PMC. I do read it as stating that the evaluation of project activity should normally be over some period of time for committers and a longer period of time for PMC status (e.g. maybe we miss someone who's behaving like a committer over a normal 3 month period, but we catch it at 6. At that point they've been around as long as a PMC so we skip the committer step).
Of course, I might be biased by the fact that I skipped directly to PMC status. :) On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:23 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 >>>
