I don't think we closed on this discussion. How long to we keep the initial committer's invitations valid?
I was suggesting Sept 15th as a cut-off. I thought we were going to send out one final reminder to all who had not responded yet. Did that happen? -Rob On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: >> This is a great discussion. One meta-point to consider: how important (re: >> urgent) is this to decide right now? >> > > The discussion continues to resurface and is unresolved. One possible > outcome is that we rescind the committer invitations of those who do > not progress in a reasonable time period to submit their iCLA. > Hopefully we all agree that if we go down that path, then deciding in > advance and giving ample warning, is preferable then just doing this > as an ad hoc decision of the PPMC on an individual case. In other > words, it will be perceived as more fair if we do this as a matter of > policy and do it consistently. > > And of course, agreeing not to decide would be a decision as well. > >> If people find this work interesting, that's great. But in terms of rules >> and procedures, sometimes it's fine to not over-document the rules until >> there's a case where they're really needed. >> > > Since this topic continues to come up and is unresolved, I think a > general rule is appropriate, provided we can agree on what that rule > should be. We don't need to address fanciful hypothetical, but like > a reusable code module, we should design a rule that addresses the > foreseeable cases. And like code can be changed, so can rules. > >> Note that it's pointless to attempt to provide an individual theoretical >> standing to make project decisions without an iCLA until we have such a case >> actually happen; then we can have the individual work with legal-internal@ >> to understand why they won't sign the iCLA. iCLAs are strictly mandatory to >> be a committer, no exceptions. >> >> - Shane, who thinks someone can cast a binding vote as a committer (i.e. on >> code modifications) after they have submitted the iCLA, and who can cast a >> binding vote on (P)PMC matters once their addition to the (P)PMC has been >> properly ACKd by the IPMC or the project chair. >> >> On 7/23/2011 2:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow, >>> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in, >>> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded, >>> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc. >>> >>> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For >>> example, at what point can they veto a code modification? >>> >>> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete >>> the above set of steps. >>> >>> >>> -Rob >> >