Agreed. Unless there is any objection I plan to assume lazy consensus and remove the draft marking tomorrow or shortly thereafter.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >>>>
