I think at the current time the benefit of growing the community by adding to the PMC outweighs the risk of adding PMC members who may only be "ready" for committership. So I'd vote for Committer == PMC. If that calculation changes in the future, we can revisit.
Greg On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Sravya Tirukkovalur <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I agree that Sentry has been mostly operating with decisions being > made on dev list ( PPMC + Committer + contributors). > > I looked at various other projects, and was trying to look at why Committer > = PPMC makes sense in some settings and not in some. Seems like Committer = > PPMC makes sense during incubation as it would drive more folks thinking of > building the community which is super important given the small time in > incubation. Not saying non PPMC do not work on building the community but > it just gives extra push by giving rights on electing committers. Given > that, I would like to see Committer == PPMC in Sentry. One thing we might > consider is: All committers who have contributed (code and non code) after > entering graduation? > > Thanks! > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Anne Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > After investigation, it seems for some existing projects we do see > > Committer == PPMC, and it is up to project community's decision. For > > example here states, "In many projects committers are also invited to be > > part of the core group within the project that ensures the project's > > vitality (represented by the Project Management Committee, PMC). In a few > > projects a only a subset of committers, who have earned even more merit, > > are invited to be a part of the PMC. " > > > > It appears sentry is contributing voluntarily by a smaller size of active > > committers, to encourage involvement and ensure vitality, we can start to > > consider this Committer == PPMC approach. > > > > Thanks, > > Anne > > > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Lenni Kuff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > This is breaking off a separate discussion for the thread Sravya > started > > > [1]. Specifically, the part around whether Sentry should move from a > > model > > > where Committer != PPMC to a model where Committer == PPMC. > > > > > > Background: > > > It's been two years since the Sentry project entered incubation and > over > > > that time we have welcomed many new community members, as committers > > > and contributors. However, we have not added any new PPMC members over > > the > > > same time period. This is concerning because building a successful > > > community means growing committers as well as growing the PPMC. > > > At the same time, we have strived to be a very open community, and > > involve > > > everyone (not just PPMC members) in project decisions. As Arvind > > mentioned > > > [2], there have been few instances, outside of committership/board > > reports, > > > where the PPMC made decisions outside of the dev list. > > > > > > Given that we have a) in some ways implicitly been acting in a > Committer > > == > > > PPMC model already and b) have many new folks in the community from > when > > > the project started, I think we should revisit this topic. > > > > > > I want to hear everyone's thoughts on whether you think we should go > with > > > Committer == PPMC model for Sentry? Logistically, this would mean all > > > existing committers would become PPMC members and there would be no > > > distinction between committer and PPMC member moving forward. > > > > > > Feel free to also chime in if you disagree with my assessment above. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sentry-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCACMN7iwY1FXCN6iGTJAN28MC4v%3DFUpKAzvdqVRNq9%3DK7YcomtQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sentry-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCAHUddLMOeq7q4XFpy6VcCcmetUjt5iazf1fNmXv15EXJrypTWg%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Lenni > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Anne > > > > > > -- > Sravya Tirukkovalur >
