On 09/07/2012 04:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
I'm not particularly satisfied with current PMC selection process.
I think the first pass was actually fairly reasonable, and fairly
quickly resulted in a list that contains the people who are serious
about the project. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to find
consensus on the next step. I'd like to propose a different way to
look at this which may lead us to a better way to move forward. I
think we can avoid the need to organize the next step around '-1'
(i.e. speaking out against potential PMC members - discussions
around who to leave off), and instead create an affirmative process
where we identify who we want on.
What is a good Project Management Committee? Here's my start
(please expand on this):
* Representative of the diversity of tasks in the community
(developers, web/wiki/forum, translators, testers, UX, release,
marketing, press, ecosystem, infrastructure) * Representative of
the geographical diversity in the community * Made up of the most
involved members of the community * Able and Competent to perform
required ASF functions (overseeing releases and developing the
community) * Represents the community in the best possible light
While on one hand I understand why so many of us want to be on the
PMC, a large PMC is not necessarily in the best interest of the
project. The PMC should not be making decisions about the
direction of the project and on who gets to do what - the PMC
should be mostly involved with voting in new committers and
approving releases. The direction of the project should be
determined on ooo-dev, and by the people who are active in the
parts of the community listed above.
My Proposal for the next step in the PMC selection process: I
suggest that each of us provide up to 10 names for the PMC. no
spreadsheet - no voting - no '-1s' for now. Just an affirmative
list of the 10 people you think should be doing the work of the
PMC. (the list of names we have produced so far is a great place
to start for your list, but it is not exclusive) Anyone can play!
PPMC members, committers, the community. Next we use this to
produce a list of the group getting the most votes. (using PPMC and
committer lists as more binding) We can use this to produce the
next pass at the proposed PMC roster, hopefully a PMC of around 20
members.
If we are doing this then the list should start with the full current
list of committers all as candidates. Contributors lists are
tabulated separately and compared. (Apache Flex did something similar
for a logo contest.)
If a non-committer is selected that would be unusual, but not a
problem. (Maybe an mail archive access issue, but that is Infra and
should not be a concern.)
Make the list 10. If someone can't come up with 10 then let's allow
repeat names. No voting for yourself. No reason not to have a public
vote.
We can repeat it on an annual basis. If a PMC has trouble passing
releases then we discuss on the dev list.
Regards, Dave
Andrew
I think Andrew's idea has a lot of merit, and we should try this. Dave's
advice about using the committer list for selection seems the most
reasonable way to start.
With the list of PMC attributes here, I think this will be a great way
to get input from everyone.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
being filled. The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
let the beautiful stuff out."
-- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"
