On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.
Hi GeertJan,
I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so much
contradictory advice :-)
The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and other
mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
of the project.
The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he had to
deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single case.
Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off case.
The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be made
very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.
But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that (quote):
"IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".
Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works, but I
think it does not, or at least, it will not.
For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is no
way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list, nor
who has been left out erroneously.
Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never can be
put together proper.
Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating all past
contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more unclear,
even more 'unfair'.
And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the sense
that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of people
seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers decide).
Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when* they
come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.
Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than voting
in active contributors when they actively show up.
Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to say.
Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future committers.
IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.
The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get the
project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the initial
committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".
They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking, based
on their past contribution *and* their (intended) active participation.
Based on merit for the *new* Apache NetBeans project, not (just) their past
contributions, no matter how small/large that might have been.
And for that reason, an initial committers list must be fairly sized, with
enough diversity, spread out interest, and with recognition and be trusted by
the NetBeans community. And then: stop there.
The initially proposed committers list IMO already was 'good enough'
for this purpose. And AFAICT nobody questioned the list to be unfair or not
'good enough'. Of course adding one or two extra who were overlooked and are
expected to help make a difference and speed up the process still is fine.
So my strong advise is to stick to the original list.
And to first discuss it with the Bertrand as Champion and the other mentors
before modifying the proposal further.
Kind regards, Ate
Here's what I propose:
1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I
have already started doing this, grouping individual contributors in
specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
Apache precisely in order to open up the governance model so that more can
participate.
2. When in doubt, we will follow the advice of our mentors over the advice
of those who are not our mentors.
3. We will show in the initial contributors list what each of the initial
contributors is planning to contribute, as concretely as possible, to show
that we have a list of contributors who really want to and are planning to
contribute as soon as they're able to do so.
4. I don't believe anyone will fork NetBeans for not being on the initial
contributors list nor do I believe that anyone will want to be on the
initial contributors list as some kind of desire for status -- everyone on
the list is known in one way or another in the community or has worked on
NetBeans for years from within Oracle. These are all people who are
committed to NetBeans and to its future in Apache.
5. At the end of incubation, we will go through the list very thoroughly.
Anyone who has not contributed will be contacted to confirm that they'd
like to be removed from the list before we become a TPL. I see no problems
in that regard, I'm sure people who don't end up committing will have no
problem being removed from the list at that stage and being voted in again
if/when they change their mind later.
Hope the above works for everyone and thanks everyone for all the energy
everyone is putting into this process.
Thanks,
Geertjan
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org>
wrote:
toki wrote on 9/24/16 8:04 PM:
On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between
2002-2008. He then drifted away from the
project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.
Is it possible to create a "master list' of everybody who has
contributed, when they contributed, and roughly how much they
contributed?
If so, then:
* send everybody on that list an ICLA to fill out and return;
* Include that list as an appendix to the Incubation Paperwork. Call it
_Individuals who, on request will be considered to be part of the
Initial Committer List_, once the appropriate paperwork has been signed
and submitted;
* The _Initial Committer List_ consists of people who have signed and
submitted the appropriate paperwork, and requested to be on the list;
My advice is to leave the initial committer list as-is, and then wait to
see who actually shows up to do work on the project during the
incubation process.
Part of what the IPMC looks for during incubation is can the podling
community self-govern, a large part of which is voting in new committers
in an appropriate fashion.
Separately, when a podling is ready to graduate, and the IPMC votes to
recommend graduation to the board, the actual committer and PMC lists
for the top level project sometimes change versus the whole committer
list during incubation. People who never show up to actually work on
the podling probably should not be left on the committer list for the
future top level project.
- Shane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
