I'll bite. I'd like to start one for TP. On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM David Neuman <[email protected]> wrote:
> @Robert Butts <[email protected]>, there is a process to create > more > mailing lists, Phil helped me do it to create summits@ > > If someone is interested in starting our first working group, I will be > happy to help. > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:23 PM Robert O Butts <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 on Working Groups, the IETF also works by consensus, and WGs work very > > well there. > > > > They're particularly good for letting people subscribe to things they > care > > about, while ignoring things they don't. It'd be ideal if Apache will let > > us make arbitrary mailing lists. Not sure if that's possible? > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:18 PM Hoppal, Michael < > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Agreed with Jeremy I would be +1 on both ideas. > > > > > > On 11/13/19, 2:07 PM, "ocket 8888" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > well, I actually like Dave's suggestion better than my own > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jeremy Mitchell < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I like both of those ideas. Either a working group and someone > > > volunteers > > > > to setup/lead the working group (ideally a committer or pmc > member) > > > or an > > > > RM at the component level to help manage issues, milestones, > > > roadmaps, etc. > > > > > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:27 PM Dave Neuman <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree with Rob and Jonathan on this one. I don't see a > reason > > > that > > > > > committers cannot already gravitate toward a component, and I > > want > > > to > > > > avoid > > > > > adding any formal designation to community members outside of > the > > > defined > > > > > Apache ones (contributor, commiter, and pmc). > > > > > I think I would rather see us head in the direction of working > > > groups. > > > > We > > > > > can define working groups for each component (although I really > > > don't > > > > think > > > > > each component needs one) that is open to anyone. The working > > > group can > > > > > meet on a consistent interval and can use that time to complete > > the > > > > > managerial tasks outlined above as well as discuss open PRs, > have > > > design > > > > > conversations, etc. Of course, any decision made in the > working > > > group > > > > > meeting would then need to be brought back to the list. > Ideally > > > we would > > > > > have a PMC member that takes the initiative to setup the > working > > > group, > > > > but > > > > > I don't see that as a hard requirement. I am happy to help > > anyone > > > who is > > > > > interested get a working group setup. > > > > > > > > > > --Dave > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:24 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 10:57 -0700, Jeremy Mitchell wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe component lead is not the right term? > > > > > > >> ... hold the position for a defined amount of time ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Since most of the responsibilities seem tied to releases, > maybe > > > we just > > > > > > need sub-release-managers for the components? The main RM can > > > also fill > > > > > > one of those positions as well as "main RM". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
