I'm in favour of this for the reasons I put forward in response to Craig's post. I have no idea whether it will have the desired effect or not - but IMO its a good idea and I think we should give it a go.
Niall On 4/25/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Struts community, > > > We have seen a rash of what most people consider "noise" on these lists > recently, and I can't deny that I was even part of some of it (although > I hope somewhat more constructively than some). However, underlying the > "noise" I feel were a few valid points worth considering. I for one have. > > What I've come away with is a proposal I would like to make. It would > represent a procedural change of sorts, or addition to be more accurate. > I ask that anyone who has a thought on it please feel free to comment, > but I ask that you try and do so constructively. It is not my intention > to start another 200-post thread that quickly devolves into name-calling > and insults. > > Also, please try not to get hung up on all the details, because they are > debatable and negotiable (although I have tried to make them reasonable > to start with). The two principles described in the conclusion are what > is really important. The details of how this would work can be adjusted > to make everyone happy. > > > A proposal for community-based committer nominations > ---------------------------------------------------- > > * Rationale > One of the issues that a number of people seem to have with the way > Struts has progressed is the seeming inability (or difficulty at least) > of getting "new blood" involved. There seems to be a perception by many > that there is a bit of a "closed club" mentality with regard to being > invited in as a committer and that the Struts community at large has no > say in the matter. > > * Proposed Change: > First, let me make clear that this proposal does NOT change the existing > mechanism by which someone is invited to be a committer. That decision > still rests soley with the PMC. This proposal only seeks to build on > top of that mechanism. I propose that a community-based nomination > process be instituted. For the sake of discussion, a "qualified" person > is anyone that has been on the Struts Dev and/or User mailing lists for > at least 6 months and has been relatively active (say, at minimum, 2 > posts per week total). Any qualified person is eligible for nomination, > or to nominate someone else. Naturally, a person could never nominate > themselves. A nomination must then be seconded by another qualified > person. At that point, a voting period of one week commences, where any > non-committer and non-PMC member, "qualified" or not, may vote (the > usual +1, 0, -1). The original nominator is responsible for tallying > the vote. A person must receive at least 60% +1's (i.e., 6 out of 10 > must be +1) and no more than half of the remainder may be negative. At > the end of that one week period, the vote results will be posted to the > Dev list and a similar one week period will commence where existing > Struts team members vote for the nominee. Also note that at any point, > the nominee can decline the nomination. We wouldn't want to offer > someone up that doesn't want to job! > > * Conclusion: > Once again, let me make perfectly clear that the existing PMC still > retains 100% control over who is invited to join. This proposal only > serves to introduce a mechanism by which members of the community can be > nominated and force a vote by the PMC. That is of course the first > important principle of this proposal. The other important principle is > taking the will of the community into account. By having the PMC not > vote until AFTER the community has voted, the "will of the community" > should be apparent, and the idea is that the PMC will take that into > account when voting. The community will then have a clear indication > whether they have been listened to or not based on the outcome of the > vote (and the comments made during the vote because, after all, there > ould be legitimate reasons not to adhere to the community's vote, and > hose reasons should come out in discussion). But, at the end of the > day, who is invited to join is still decided by the PMC, as it is today. > > > I look forward to feedback. Thanks for listening! > > Frank > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
