Responding as a mentor - not as an OO.o committer... On 12 July 2011 23:39, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > Good point, Rob. I am not floating a proposal, more an opportunity for > discussion. Here are some questions: > > 1. When should we conclude that the Initial Committers that have arrived are > all that are coming and we should close the door, with all further committers > being by invitation of the PPMC?
I'd suggest sending a notification to all who self-identified that they have 10 days to either submit an ICLA or indicate that they are taking advice before signing. The PPMC has been active in chasing people. It's legitimate to close the door on those who do not respond to such a request. For those who are "taking advice" I would give an additional 30 days. > 2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an > established pattern of contribution on the project: > <http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html>. > > 2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- > be taken into consideration? > 2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all? Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went before. > 3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being > even-handed in the invitation of new committers? Consistency in the application of committer selection guidelines. That, of course, begs the question "what are our selection guidelines". Personally I don't see any need to define these in advance. Anyone on the PPMC can propose anyone for committership. A discussion will take place and, in most cases a vote will be called. If I, as a mentor, see someone being inconsistent in their support or obstruction of any individual I will ask them to justify their position. If their position is consistent across each case then their opinion is entirely valid. Trying to define "rules" for these things does not make any sense, the types of contribution are just too variable. It is best to just let these things evolve and deal with them on a case by case basis, openly and transparently. > 4. Is it understood why the ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is being > created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the security > under which matters of security are raised? As a mentor I have some concerns about this. The private@ list is for private project communications. We've already seen far too much happening on the private@ list (although I am pleased to report to the ooo-dev list that this practice seems to have stopped now - well done PPMC members). That being said, I can see the logic in the argument. as long as this list is used *only* for security issues it should be fine. > 5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. What do you > want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations? I'll echo Shane's comments here. There is no need to rush things. Let them evolve naturally. Trying to anticipate issues before they arrive is likely to result in too much "red tape" around the project. That being said, again echoing Shane, I think mails like this that are purposefully designed to increase engagement and transparency will ensure that most issues are addressed in an appropriate and timely fashion. Keep up the great work. Ross > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains > > Is this intended as a blog post? It reads like one. In particular I > don't see any proposals to discuss. > > -Rob > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > >> We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. It is >> useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we >> are. >> >> The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the >> reconstitution of the code base under Apache. There is also concern for the >> documentation and web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella. >> >> Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is >> immediately able to contribute much. We are in the process of organizing >> and bringing over and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the project >> that will be the foundation for further work. There is not much to get our >> teeth into in terms of actual development until that is sorted out. (E.g., >> we don't have a bug tracker yet and the documentation, localization, and >> user-facing folk, including marketing, are still wondering how our project >> will accommodate them.) >> >> Meanwhile, there is also how we organize ourselves to operate as an Apache >> project. >> >> - Dennis >> >> 1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC >> 2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN? >> 3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON? >> 4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT >> >> >> 1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC >> >> The set of Initial Committers is a self-selected group who added their names >> to the Initial Committers list on the original incubator proposal. That's >> how the podling is bootstrapped. Likewise, ooo-dev participation is fully >> self-selected, and it will stay that way. >> >> This means that we are a group of people who have not worked together as a >> single Apache project community before, even though there are a variety of >> mutual acquaintances and associations in the mix. >> >> Of the Initial Committers, a subset were eager to be on the project and have >> arrived. That is the overwhelming source of the current 54 committers, 41 >> also being on the PPMC. >> >> 2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN? >> >> There are still about two-dozen Initial Committers who have not yet >> registered an iCLA. We don't know if they are arriving or not. One issue is >> when to close the door on initial committers who have taken no initiative to >> be here, although reminders have been sent out. >> >> It is also the case that all initial committers are welcome to participate >> in the PPMC but not all have taken action to do so. At some point, the PPMC >> will not grow automatically and that also needs to be resolved. >> >> 3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON? >> >> We vote on other committers the same as any [P]PMC. The addition of two >> invited committers has already been reported. >> >> One thing that concerns the PPMC (who, for all but two members, walked >> through an open door) is how and when do we move from consideration of >> previous reputation and being known to some of us to a situation where >> contribution on the podling is the determining factor. We're working our >> way through that. The PPMC is also concerned that, although the addition of >> new committers and new PPMC members is carried out in private, we be >> transparent about how we are conducting ourselves and that we demonstrate >> that we are even-handed about it. >> >> It is not clear what the ooo-dev community wants to see and what the >> understood progression to the normal rules for invitation of committers >> should be. >> >> >> 4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT >> >> The PPMC is responsible for dealing, quietly and privately, with security >> matters and their resolution. The security@ team informs us that because we >> have so many members who are unknown here and also to each other at this >> point, a limited ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is essential. We >> need to identify those few among us who have appropriate skills and >> sensibilities around security matters and who can keep their work secret >> when that is appropriate. >> >> For this, we want to know who has been on the security teams of >> OpenOffice.org and who happen to be here also. There will also be >> cross-communication with other security teams that operate on the same code >> base, or in some cases, that operate on the same document formats. >> >> We will be going ahead with the creation of the private ooo-security list >> for that purpose. What we are waiting for is identification of three >> moderators who are distributed around the earth's time zones well enough to >> provide moderation of incoming reports in something approximating 24/7 >> coverage. >> >> [end] >> > > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
