airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Lowering the barrier: Committter != PMC
Date Tue, 06 Aug 2013 15:52:30 GMT
Based on your thoughtful discussion below, I'm +1 for what you're saying.

My message to you: you don't need anyone else (including me) to be +1 :)

Simply:

1. Nominate folks (those 12 people) for Committer and call a VOTE. If it
passes your goal is accomplished.

That is to say, just because all of the Airavata VOTEs thus far have been
PMC==C, I'm now figuring out that sweeping rules that everyone has to
follow
don't necessary make as much sense, or aren't as inclusive as still
following
the same principles that bind us; but allowing flexibility and differences
in
opinions.

In other words call the VOTEs :) Nothing stopping you and if they pass,
all good
and follow down your workflow to get them to PMC. On my end don't also
blame me
if I call a VOTE for both at the same time; when and if I do, VOTE your
conscience,
and try to see my point of view as well -- if we can agree on those
principles
(as can the rest of the PMC), I think we're done here :)

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++






-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Marru <smarru@apache.org>
Reply-To: "dev@airavata.apache.org" <dev@airavata.apache.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 8:48 AM
To: "dev@airavata.apache.org" <dev@airavata.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Lowering the barrier: Committter != PMC

>Hi Chris,
>
>I appreciate you taking time to ask all these questions, this is exactly
>the discussion I was hoping for.
>
>I do not have good reasons for your second question "having someone on
>the PMC but who didn't participate hindered in any way? ".  I do not look
>at it that way. Any one being on PMC and not participating is not an
>issue by any means. They are on the PMC because atleast in the past they
>cared about the project. If they did not get annoyed and unsubscribe from
>the mailing list, thats great. Even once in a blue moon if they bothered
>to read the email or even better respond, thats more than the minimum. I
>have some examples where I hear off-list they do not like the software
>and go spread the negative word, I would not be motivated to nominate
>them to PMC. If some one gets on to the mailing list and they say this is
>crap, I would favor them and get them onboard simply because they cared
>to complain. . In the former case, I do mind to give them commit bits
>though.
>
>Your first question is what I am after. I would have nominated close to a
>dozen to give out commit bits. These include past and present gsoc
>students, academic project students, random users. If some one bothers to
>try out a tutorial and persists in the user lists for few months in
>trying out the software and comes back and complains the latest version
>has the same bug. I would like turn around and say, welcome on board,
>please fix it. There is a chance they now interested and do more and earn
>a PMC in no time. You might argue, why not do the same now and give them
>a PMC. One, because we had seen too many bad examples who literally
>vanish after their academic/gsoc goal or what their boss/adviser asks
>them to do. Secondly, its probably because I have not yet been long
>enough here to become more liberal. May be in the near future, I will
>come around arguing this is unnecessary overhead, lets make all
>committers pmc members. As of now, I am trying to open up so all the
>contributors who have the promise (but not yet validated) can be bought
>onboard. 
>
>Suresh
>
>
>On Aug 6, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)"
><chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hey Suresh,
>> 
>> Can you cite an example of someone that you haven't given the PMC
>> bit to, because you are weary that doing so would add them to
>> the PMC even though they don't have interest in the project? I
>> realize talking about specific people on the public list is not
>> desirable, so maybe you can give me a count or something or some
>> indication like "I would have nominated 5 people for the PMC, but
>> b/c I think they will only code and not e.g., VOTE, *and* because
>> we are PMC==C, then I didn't nominate them?"
>> 
>> Another way to put it -- can you cite an example of someone who
>> is on the PMC but who doesn't participate in e.g., VOTE'ing, etc.,
>> as being a problem with a specific e.g., release VOTE, committer
>> VOTE, etc., that having someone on the PMC but who didn't participate
>> hindered in any way? Again, don't have to name names, just examples.
>> 
>> Without such an example, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish
>> here besides introduce a new level in-between (e.g., PMC != C) which
>> IMO doesn't reduce anything it simply adds (# of emails to send; #
>>results
>> to tally; length of board ACK waiting period, because it's now x2, etc.)
>> 
>> Just trying to flush out the thing to accomplish here not trying to
>> be difficult at all.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Senior Computer Scientist
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
>> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Suresh Marru <smarru@apache.org>
>> Reply-To: "dev@airavata.apache.org" <dev@airavata.apache.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 8:12 AM
>> To: "dev@airavata.apache.org" <dev@airavata.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Lowering the barrier: Committter != PMC
>> 
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> 
>>> Right now to get some one onboard PMC needs a very small demonstration
>>>of
>>> interest in the project. I think introducing a committer only role in
>>> between removes even this barrier and we can give out commit bit's much
>>> more easy and rapidly.
>>> 
>>> Suresh
>>> 
>>> On Aug 6, 2013, at 10:47 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)"
>>> <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If PMC == C, how will introducing a committer role lower the
>>>> barrier? Instead it would increase it, no, by making PMC != C.
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry just my 2cŠ
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>> 
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>>>> Senior Computer Scientist
>>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>>>> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
>>>> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Suresh Marru <smarru@apache.org>
>>>> Reply-To: "dev@airavata.apache.org" <dev@airavata.apache.org>
>>>> Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 1:03 PM
>>>> To: Airavata Dev <dev@airavata.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Lowering the barrier: Committter != PMC
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Airavata currently follows Committer == PMC, I am still a supporter
>>>>>of
>>>>> this model. I think this is the right thing to do and more over we
>>>>>want
>>>>> all the "doers" to be the ones guiding the project. I am also a
>>>>> supporter
>>>>> of the Mattman's law of Open Source which famously quotes we are in
>>>>> recruiting business. So nothing changes on these, but I am looking to
>>>>> mitigate some limbo's.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am increasingly noticing contributors who are just caring about
>>>>>their
>>>>> code contributions and not caring enough to lean the "Apache Way".
>>>>> While
>>>>> this is not ideal, I am trying to think on sustainable ways instead
>>>>>of
>>>>> one-off nudges.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This thread is to re-vist this topic and see if introducing a
>>>>> commmitter
>>>>> only role and much more lowering the barrier in giving committership
>>>>> will
>>>>> reward and motivate few more contributors. The only advantage is we
>>>>>can
>>>>> safely recruit commmitters based on the signs for potential to
>>>>> contribute. When they make actual contributions and are thinking for
>>>>> the
>>>>> project entirely, assisting users and release process and in other
>>>>> project activities, we make them PMC members.  This will essentially
>>>>> make
>>>>> Airavata PMC != Committters. The roles are clearly defined at -
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles This
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is a discussion thread only, so every one (not just current PMC)
>>>>> please voice your  opinion on this topic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Suresh
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>


Mime
View raw message