Hi Justin and all, Thank you for the thorough review and the constructive feedback. As one of the mentors for Apache Fluss, I'd like to provide some context and offer guidance to the PPMC on the path forward.
*The PPMC did initiate a discussion on PMC composition* I want to clarify that determining the proposed PMC is the PPMC's responsibility, and this discussion did take place on the private mailing list [1] prior to the graduation proposal. In that discussion, the question was explicitly posed: *"PMC membership: Beyond our current mentors and PPMC members, are there any active committers or contributors you'd like to nominate as new PMC members?"*. The community was also asked to review the draft resolution and indicate *"if you would prefer to be excluded from the new PMC."* So the intent to reflect was there. However, I acknowledge that the discussion did not result in concrete changes to the proposed list - no new members were nominated, and no one opted out. In hindsight, this should have been a more deliberate exercise. *On "merit never expires" and the proposed PMC* I want to acknowledge Justin's clarification: *"'merit never expires' is a principle about not removing existing PMC members, not a justification for including people in an initial graduation PMC based on pre-donation historical contributions. The two situations are different."* [2] I agree that this distinction is technically correct - the ASF Committers FAQ states *"Committer status and merit never expire"* [3] in the context of existing committers and PMC members, and a graduation PMC is indeed a new construct [4]. That said, I would note that the spirit of this principle - that significant past contributions are recognized and respected - is still a relevant context when considering PPMC members who played foundational roles. The question is not whether their past contributions alone justify inclusion, but whether they are willing to continue serving. *My recommendation to the PPMC* I believe Justin's feedback is constructive, and the Graduation Readiness guide [5] asks the same questions: *"Are the people proposed for PMC doing the work now?"* and *"Does the proposed PMC reflect current stewardship?"* I would recommend the PPMC conduct a fresh, structured discussion, specifically: 1. *Actively consider adding committers to the PMC*. As Justin noted: *"There is no evidence that the community asked 'who has contributed during incubation and should be recognised' or 'are there committers who have earned PMC membership through their work during this period.'"* [2] The PPMC should do exactly that now - review recent contribution data and identify committers who have demonstrated sustained engagement and governance readiness during incubation. 2. *For less-active original PPMC members, use this new discussion as a commitment checkpoint*. Rather than preemptively removing members who made foundational contributions to the project - contributions that were the basis for Fluss entering the Incubator - I would recommend giving them the opportunity to participate in this new round of discussion and explicitly express their willingness to take on active PMC governance responsibilities going forward. If they engage and commit to sustained participation in community stewardship, that constitutes a forward-looking signal and they should be retained. If they do not respond or participate, the PPMC can draw its own conclusions. This approach respects the fact that these members' early work enabled the project to reach this point, while still addressing Justin's concern that the proposed PMC should reflect current and future commitment, not solely historical contributions. *Process going forward* I would suggest the following process: - The PPMC conducts the discussion and determination of the updated PMC roster on the private mailing list, as this is the PPMC's governance responsibility [4][6]. - Once finalized, the PPMC reports the updated resolution back here in this discussion thread. - The PPMC also informs the dev mailing list for community transparency - not for re-deliberation on composition (which is the PPMC's decision [4][6]), but to ensure the broader community is aware of the outcome, as the dev list discussion [7] did not substantively address this question as Justin noted. I will work with the PPMC to facilitate this process. Any further input from the IPMC is welcome as this moves forward. Best Regards, Yu [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/42w3l2j4575yk4yds4v6m9g9xv0nm48g [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/7cnklxft7wdjf7sf0hlpnk5w14rrnrv9 [3] https://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term [4] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Podling+PPMC+Onboarding [5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Graduation+Readiness [6] https://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation (Section: "Preparing a Charter" — "It is up to the PPMC to choose") [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/9z36p0fg5vv7hh4dcr5yqc5f6krjry On Wed, 27 May 2026 at 14:03, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I recall that the PMC roster was previously mentioned on the podling > mailing list without receiving a reply. I suggest we return to the private > mailing list to discuss and update the roster. I am confident the IPMC > would appreciate seeing a clear, updated list that reflects the current > state of the project. > > Graduation is an appropriate time to refresh the roster by confirming the > commitment of mentors and PPMC members to serve on the future PMC. > > Regards, > JB > > > On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 7:00 AM Giannis Polyzos <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Gotcha, > > > > Let us circle back on this and provide more context and updates to > address > > any concerns. > > > > Best, > > Giannis > > > > On Wed, 27 May 2026 at 3:30 AM, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Giannis, > > > > > > To answer your direct question: both, but they are related. > > > > > > The process concern is that the graduation PMC list was not revisited > > > during incubation. It largely reflects the original donation proposal, > > with > > > one addition. A graduation is the right moment to ask who has earned > PMC > > > membership through their contributions during incubation, and that > > > reflection does not appear to have happened. > > > > > > The composition concern follows from that. If the community had done > that > > > reflection, I would expect to see some active committers elevated to > the > > > PMC, and I would expect to see harder questions asked about whether all > > > original PPMC members have remained sufficiently engaged to warrant > > > inclusion in the graduation PMC. > > > > > > The growth of the committer base is a positive. But committers and PMC > > > members serve different roles. A healthy committer pipeline does not > > > resolve whether the proposed PMC composition reflects merit and > sustained > > > engagement during incubation. > > > > > > What would give me confidence is the PPMC doing that reflection now, > > > before the vote, and updating the proposed list accordingly. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > Justin > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > >
