On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
I changed the alias of this message back to the incubator, because
I think it's back to a more general discussion.
On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
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....)
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.
It's the "immediately" that's the crux of the question.
Yes
I can't think of any projects where committership == PMC membership.
By choice or by accident?
Totally by choice.
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.
What I'm trying to do is to come up with a statement that can be
put into the Incubator guides on PPMC roles and responsibilities
(see the original email of this thread). I missed with my first
attempt, which is, "Podlings are encouraged to make all committers
members of the Podling's PPMC. Thus, the vote to accept a new
committer should also be a vote to accept a new member of the PPMC.
" I need to reword this if the committer vote and the PPMC
membership vote are not the same.
Well, yeah, I disagree with that statement. However, a podling is
free to do this. But I think it's not a great idea. First, it's
counter to ASF convention and tradition. Second, if you believe that
being a PMC member requires more "something" than having write access
to SVN (which is, in it's basest form, what committership means),
then you are setting a higher bar, and will therefore will add
committers at a slower rate.
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 -
It's the back and forth that I was calling attention to.
Well, I rarely state the former other than in discussion.
I can convince myself that there should be no committer w/o
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".
So you want a committer vote by the PMC, followed some time
afterward by a PMC membership vote. What I'm still missing is the
"well articulated reasons for letting there be interactions as
"committers peers" before granting PMC membership". Are the reasons
enumerated somewhere?
Probably not, because it's a personal, subjective judgement, not a
checklist. It's also a consensus decision - for example, you may
suggest that Susan should be on the PMC. I may have never interacted
with her, or seen her community building side - I may only see her as
a brilliant technician. I'll push back - and you'll provide me with
info.
Or we may decide that another candidate doesn't "feel" right.
Or lots of situations...
Is the guideline simply to check back with a committer after some
time period and see if they are interested in becoming a member of
the PPMC? Should the only thing be whether a committer requests PMC
membership? I also go back and forth on what a recently voted
committer on a project would to to change anyone's impression that
they should become a member of the PPMC.
No - I think the PPMC/PMC should take an active role in watching
committers develop into community participants, identify those that
are participating at a community level, not just a technical one, and
approach them and offer them PMC membership.
And yes, I think that there is potentially a big difference between
someone's behavior earning commit, and behavior afterwards,
especially if the project keeps a low bar for committership (which is
a good thing...)
I started with something like this, but don't like the way it sounded:
It should be a goal of a project to have all committers participate
in the PPMC. A committer who expresses interest in the governance
of the project should ask to become part of the PPMC. Membership in
the PPMC should be gated by continued commitment to the project and
an expressed interest in PPMC membership.
I don't like that either - i don't like the idea of having people
ask, because then there's the uncomfortable part of saying "no". I'd
much rather encourage (P)PMCs to take an *active* role in this kind
of community development, rather than re-active, which is what you
are proposing.
maybe I'm naive - I want to see Apache communities develop a sense of
independent identity and community, and that actually takes
committment and effort by those participating.
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 :)
No issue there.
Craig
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!
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!
