On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
> My understanding is that when a podling graduates to a TLP, all committers > automatically become PMC members of the TLP. Correct me if I am mistaken. > I think that the project actually decides what to propose on this. With Storm, for instance, mentors and early committers were offered the choice. Some declined, citing their lack of contribution, some opted to continue involvement. Graduation is a good time to make this sort of decision. > > Can someone with more experience of this process please comment on how > projects handle this? Particularly wrt initial committers, who, like > god-parents, are often chosen for their virtue and wisdom rather than their > willingness to get their hands dirty changing diapers. > Or chosen due to their initial enthusiasm. Things change. > > I think that a bloated PMC prevents effective governance, and that now is > the time to prune. > I think that the evidence is somewhat contrary to this. A PMC with lots of active non-contributors can be a problem. This is very rare in Apache. A much more common problem is that a small PMC has trouble getting 3 really solid votes for releases due to having a lean PMC. Things happen. Trips. Babies. Illness. Life. It is surprisingly easy to find yourself with 10 PMC members, all pretty active but without 3 release reviews. Mostly having too many PMC members means that many are silent. With lazy consensus, this is not a problem. > > Should the initial committers be given a chance to renounce their > comittership? Some other mechanism to prune? > I think that is a nice way to do it. On the other hand, it is nice to recognize some early committers who contributed early on but may not be able to currently.
