directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: [graduation] Our next step
Date Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:58:19 GMT
Niclas,

You make some very good points here.  Let's continue in line ...

Niclas Hedhman wrote:

>On Saturday 12 February 2005 14:04, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>  
>
>>Niclas,
>>
>>Whatever your method is can you just give us your nominations as a list
>>of names rather than your equation :) ?  I can't fill in those names for
>>you after all.  You have to do that.
>>    
>>
>
>Ok. Let me revise my suggestion. Keep the initial PMC really small and take in 
>those who are truly driving this project. Looking at the recent commit logs, 
>there are a few names that definately stands out;
>
>Alex Karasulu
>Trustin Lee
>Vincent Tence
>Enrique Rodriguez
>
>Remember, Apache PMCs are like APIs, it is easy to add but impossible to 
>remove.
>  
>
I never thought of it like that.  I guess people might get uneasy about 
revoking anything at times.  That could be crippling to an organization 
over time as it collects more and more crust, dead wood or whatever you 
call it.

>I think this group would have the respect and trust of the rest of the 
>community to nuture this project into an Apache flagship project.
>  
>
Well I think these people do have the nurturing aspect but they may be a 
subset of the PMC.  I don't want to exclude others.  However I do agree 
that the PMC should start small enough to function.  There is no reason 
to invite everyone on board.   There needs to be a cut off here.  Sure 
people can get nominated but everyone that is nominated should not 
automatically be stuffed into a PMC.  At the end of this process we will 
know who should be on the PMC and it will be done with civility and respect.

>So my suggestion to the community is to ratify a simple list like this, 
>instead of having individual nominations, voting of individuals and so forth. 
>It is not graceful to be faced with nominations that one doesn't like, and by 
>voting negative you are presenting both yourself and the other individual in 
>unfavourable light, and many would therefor vote in favour, just to avoid the 
>confrontation.
>  
>
We can't neglect our responsibilities just to keep the peace.  However 
peace is good, really good.  The right thing here is to *openly* figure 
out what the correct composition of the PMC should be.  These people, as 
you say, should nurture this project and protect the interests of the 
ASF so the project and the foundation can prosper.  First comes the 
foundation, second the project's community and so on.

>Is there consensus on the above suggested small initial PMC??
>[ ] Yay, the list is good.
>[ ] Nay, let's go through the nominations, voting (and humilations).
>  
>
Let's not do this.  Let's continue forward.  We're almost done.  We're 
waiting on a few others now but if they don't respond then ... its lazy 
consensus.

I don't agree that this is humiliation.  It's not easy true, but it 
cannot be humiliation when we are all civil and respectful of one 
another.  This is a tiny bit like running for office in a small town or 
for a town hall position.  You don't get humiliated if you are not 
elected or added to some committee.  You were just not considered or did 
not meet the cutoff.  There is nothing personal.  If you don't want to 
deal with the exposure just don't accept the nomination others make on 
your behalf.  It's that simple.  If you're sensitive I definitely 
recommend passing on nominations.

You need a tough skin for open source :).  We need to sort this matter 
out for the better good of our project.  More importantly this is the 
beginning of a new Apache project so I think the stakes are high.  This 
is why we need extra openness for these decisions.  If something would 
be truly humiliating or sensitive then we would, I assure you, take the 
discussion on to the PPMC list to protect people.  We're not here to 
hurt anyones feelings - also we have to get on with the show.  It's a 
fine balance.

A community that functions well seldom needs to invoke its PMC into 
action or even start to close conversations.  When things get ugly you 
know it because conversations on the side start to occur and the public 
lists become silent.  When the community is open, without having to 
resort to counter measures to maintain the peace, that's a good sign and 
nothing to be afraid of.

Now w.r.t. these nominations we can take the list of who nominated whom 
to the PPMC list if we have to.  People already see who got nominated 
and just know.  At some point we have to make the public aware of who's 
on the PMC anyway right?  Regardless of what mailing-list this is on we 
must set a cut off so everyone and their grandmother is not on the PMC: 
more than two or three nominations should be required at a minimum.  I 
do agree with keeping the PMC small and having room to add more people 
to the committee with time.  The committee constituency is not set in 
stone for all time.  This allows us to gradually evaluate others in the 
community.

Cheers,
Alex


Mime
View raw message