RE: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
I agree that if we had had a more formal review of the initial committers list during the proposal process we would have avoided the kind of conflicts that arose after the proposal was approved. I would also agree with some other comments that this sort of policy is intended as a guideline since from what I understand projects can be (and often are) run somewhat differently. My view of what happened is that CXF basically got into some difficulties because of different views of how initial committers and PPMC members are identified that weren't resolved before submitting the proposal. It therefore would be good to have a policy that encourages review and debate on this question before bringing a proposal to vote. Thanks, Eric -Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:00 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members Leo Simons wrote: > I have never liked this explicit "champion" role, and I don't like > adding responsibilities to it, making things even more explicitly > dependent on the champion. Keep in mind that the Champion role would still end with the begining of Incubation. So the Champion's role is helping to draft the proposal, including reviewing the Committer and PPMC lists. Someone has to do it. > Take wicket as a recent example -- there its developers interfaced > directly with the PMC to talk about this kind of thing, and not > through their champions. Actually, my view, after having spoken with (almost) everyone involved from Iona and the ASF is that if this HAD been done for CXF, we would have avoided the conflicts entirely. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Thanks Martijn. Regards, Antoine Martijn Dashorst wrote: > PPMC = Podling project management committee > IPMC = Incubator project management committee > > if I'm not mistaken. > > Martijn > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > What problem are you trying to solve? Garrett's view is that you basically > > "discarded" the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and dealt > > with Committers after the fact. So a minimal Initial Committer list would > > be null except for the Mentors. > Yes. But having that list of people interested is useful. Maybe the > name should change from Initial Committer to something else when there's > no code. Sure. But do we need to document such a list in the bootstrap process? Remember: we removed the Emeritus Committer section because it was similarly unnecessary. > I was just think that this is a good guideline, but I'm wary of > strict procedure for something like this. Too many people didn't like the softer procedure that was originally proposed (and which worked well enough for Harmony). --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Anyway, I do realize that the discussion was two weeks ago. I just > missed it. Apologies. Ignore me :) No way! Yes, discussion started weeks ago, stopped, and so I called a vote. But I would never want to arbitrarily cut off discussion. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])
Anyway, I do realize that the discussion was two weeks ago. I just missed it. Apologies. Ignore me :) geir Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Should this really be "Shall"? We've been successful in Harmony with a slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any code. Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the majority of people want a binding list. The work you did on Harmony: We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and just looked for people that followed through once the project got started. would have to be done PRIOR to the vote. How? How do you see if the people actually engaged in the community until after it got formed and working? What problem are you trying to solve? Garrett's view is that you basically "discarded" the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and dealt with Committers after the fact. So a minimal Initial Committer list would be null except for the Mentors. Yes. But having that list of people interested is useful. Maybe the name should change from Initial Committer to something else when there's no code. Anyway, never mind. I was just think that this is a good guideline, but I'm wary of strict procedure for something like this. geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Should this really be "Shall"? We've been successful in Harmony with a slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any code. Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the majority of people want a binding list. The work you did on Harmony: We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and just looked for people that followed through once the project got started. would have to be done PRIOR to the vote. How? How do you see if the people actually engaged in the community until after it got formed and working? What problem are you trying to solve? Garrett's view is that you basically "discarded" the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and dealt with Committers after the fact. So a minimal Initial Committer list would be null except for the Mentors. Yes. But having that list of people interested is useful. Maybe the name should change from Initial Committer to something else when there's no code. Anyway, never mind. I was just think that this is a good guideline, but I'm wary of strict procedure for something like this. geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> Should this really be "Shall"? We've been successful in Harmony with a >>> slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in >>> except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any >> code. >> >> Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the >> majority of people want a binding list. The work you did on Harmony: >> >>> We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and >>> just looked for people that followed through once the project got started. >> >> would have to be done PRIOR to the vote. > How? How do you see if the people actually engaged in the community > until after it got formed and working? What problem are you trying to solve? Garrett's view is that you basically "discarded" the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and dealt with Committers after the fact. So a minimal Initial Committer list would be null except for the Mentors. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
> What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a particular incubator project ? See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Should this really be "Shall"? We've been successful in Harmony with a slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any code. Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the majority of people want a binding list. The work you did on Harmony: We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and just looked for people that followed through once the project got started. would have to be done PRIOR to the vote. How? How do you see if the people actually engaged in the community until after it got formed and working? geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])
On 10/25/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Should this really be "Shall"? We've been successful in Harmony with a > slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in > except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any code. Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the majority of people want a binding list. The work you did on Harmony: > We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and > just looked for people that followed through once the project got started. would have to be done PRIOR to the vote. I'm not sure how this would prevent what was done with harmony. Just have the initial proposal come with no list of committers. The champion has a very easy job to do in validating that list ;-) -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Should this really be "Shall"? We've been successful in Harmony with a > slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in > except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any code. Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the majority of people want a binding list. The work you did on Harmony: > We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and > just looked for people that followed through once the project got started. would have to be done PRIOR to the vote. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])
I didn't want to mess up the vote thread... Should this really be "Shall"? We've been successful in Harmony with a slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any code. We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and just looked for people that followed through once the project got started. geir Original Message ---- Subject: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:12:19 -0400 From: Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org To: Based upon all of the discussion -- and positive feedback from Dims, Eric Newcomer, Craig Russell, Jason van Zyl, Martijn Dashorst, David Recordon and Nail Pemberton; slight negative feedback from Leo Simons; and no strongly negative feedback that I notice -- this is now put forth for a formal vote: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
PPMC = Podling project management committee IPMC = Incubator project management committee if I'm not mistaken. Martijn On 10/25/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Noel, sorry to ask a basic question. What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a particular incubator project ? Regards, Antoine Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:12:19 -0400 Von: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: general@incubator.apache.org Betreff: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members > The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial > PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote for http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket";>Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in the World! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Hello Noel, sorry to ask a basic question. What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a particular incubator project ? Regards, Antoine Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:12:19 -0400 Von: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: general@incubator.apache.org Betreff: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members > The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial > PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
On 10/25/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Based upon all of the discussion -- and positive feedback from Dims, Eric Newcomer, Craig Russell, Jason van Zyl, Martijn Dashorst, David Recordon and Nail Pemberton; slight negative feedback from Leo Simons; and no strongly negative feedback that I notice -- this is now put forth for a formal vote: (comments on policy change process) i've come to the strong opinion that all policy needs to be recorded and document on the incubator site. all changes to the policy document require a formal vote. therefore to avoid a second vote to record a policy already approved, all policy changes should be proposed in the form of patches to the policy document. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Based upon all of the discussion -- and positive feedback from Dims, Eric Newcomer, Craig Russell, Jason van Zyl, Martijn Dashorst, David Recordon and Nail Pemberton; slight negative feedback from Leo Simons; and no strongly negative feedback that I notice -- this is now put forth for a formal vote: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Leo Simons wrote: > I have never liked this explicit "champion" role, and I don't like > adding responsibilities to it, making things even more explicitly > dependent on the champion. Keep in mind that the Champion role would still end with the begining of Incubation. So the Champion's role is helping to draft the proposal, including reviewing the Committer and PPMC lists. Someone has to do it. > Take wicket as a recent example -- there its developers interfaced > directly with the PMC to talk about this kind of thing, and not > through their champions. Actually, my view, after having spoken with (almost) everyone involved from Iona and the ASF is that if this HAD been done for CXF, we would have avoided the conflicts entirely. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
On Oct 12, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is an agreeable solution: I have never liked this explicit "champion" role, and I don't like adding responsibilities to it, making things even more explicitly dependent on the champion. Take wicket as a recent example -- there its developers interfaced directly with the PMC to talk about this kind of thing, and not through their champions. You can count me -0 if you want. LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
+1 (non-binding) Niall On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is an agreeable solution: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific barrier to (re-)entry.] The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion, wordsmithing and consensus. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Also having gone through this recently, +1 (non binding). It will however be really important that this policy is easy to find for someone looking to enter incubation as to make sure it is discussed with the champion. --David -Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 10/12/2006 9:42 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is an agreeable solution: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific barrier to (re-)entry.] The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion, wordsmithing and consensus. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
+1 (non binding) This sounds reasonable, and takes clearly into account the incoming community. Martijn On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is an agreeable solution: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific barrier to (re-)entry.] The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion, wordsmithing and consensus. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote for http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket";>Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in the World! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
+1 On 12 Oct 06, at 11:42 AM 12 Oct 06, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is an agreeable solution: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific barrier to (re-)entry.] The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion, wordsmithing and consensus. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
+1 (non-binding, but opinionated) Craig On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is an agreeable solution: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific barrier to (re-)entry.] The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion, wordsmithing and consensus. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Having just been through it ;-) this sounds very reasonable to me. I am not sure the issue of emeritus committers needs to be addressed since that can be handled by the project once it's up and running... The main thing seems to be the clarification around the initial committer list and PPMC membership. Eric -Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:43 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is an agreeable solution: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific barrier to (re-)entry.] The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion, wordsmithing and consensus. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
+1 from me. -- dims On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is an agreeable solution: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific barrier to (re-)entry.] The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion, wordsmithing and consensus. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is an agreeable solution: -- The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer, etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with the Incubator PMC. [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific barrier to (re-)entry.] The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer and PPMC lists. *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is accepted. -- Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion, wordsmithing and consensus. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
