On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 6:40 PM, John McClain wrote:
I think "reasonably high bar for commit to ensure working social
and technical compatibility, and then faster PMC" is a reasonable
place to start (understanding that it may well be imposable to
change once we start....)
According to ASF policy, committership and PMC membership are
independent.
Yes, in that the PMC is an element of Apache Foundation bylaws, and
committership isn't, if that's what you mean by "ASF policy".
The suggestion has been made that a good policy for a PMC (and by
extension a PPMC) is to have all committers who have the time to do
so to become members of the PMC as well.
yes - the PMC is the "core governance unit" of a project in that only
PMC members have a binding vote. So the goal then should be to get
all committers on the PMC.
Geir expresses a different opinion, if I'm reading correctly. He
suggests that committers not become PMC at the same time but later
("faster PMC").
What is my "opinion" different from?
I believe that all committers should be on the PMC. That doesn't
necessarily mean immediately.
I can't think of any projects where committership == PMC membership.
For example, mechanically a person can get committership based on the
PMC's whim, but at the end of the day, PMC membership is subject to
board oversight.
I'd like to understand what extra demonstration of commitment a
committer should have in order to become a member of PMC. To me,
the relatively high bar of committer plus willingness to serve
should be sufficient.
Did I capture the essence of the distinction, Geir?
I don't have the slightest idea where you are going here.
Projects choose the level of participation they look for before
offering someone committership (which varies in factors such as
skill, engagement and time).
Also, they could choose to offer that person PMC membership at that
time, or they may choose to wait - it's not unreasonable to believe
that people's behavior may change once they are granted commit
rights, as it changes the social equation.
I actually go back and forth on this one - I can convince myself that
there should be no committer w/ binding vote (iow, must be on the
PMC), but OTOH, there are well articulated reasons for letting there
be interactions as "committers peers" before granting PMC
membership. Therefore, I stick with the POV that "all committers
that want to should be on the PMC, eventually".
However, no matter what the system chosen by the PMC, I believe that
there shouldn't be a structured "caste" system - treat all committers
as equal, and if you ever need to count the official PMC votes to
make a decision, stand back and figure out why you need to do so,
because there may be a big problem :)
geir
Craig
I think "initial committer list == initial PPMC" is fine too.
Jim Hurley wrote:
I am +1 for this position/proposal. Can others on the list
please state your opinion (I think this will be a healthy
activity for us).
Geir - I am assuming that we're going to make
initial committer list == initial PPMC, though. Cool
with that?
thanks -Jim
On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:21 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:14 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
My personal taste lately is a reasonably high bar for commit
to ensure working social and technical compatibility, and then
faster PMC.
Given the nature of the ASF and the high quality and
consistency of the
codebase brought in I'm inclined to go for you personal taste.
In theory it might be possible to come up with a completely
different
process that would be a better fit, but for me it will be a
waste of
time to start thinking of that and why not try something that
has proven
itself on a few occasions.
But note that the bar isn't really that high overall - to me
it's more about social compatibility than technical prowess,
because someone who understands their limits, works well with
others, and is willing to learn is a treasure :)
geir
--Mark
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
