Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of harbs.lists@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: The Flex PMC is broken
From: Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4741C71F-DE1C-4789-8479-68D9833BD813@classsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:34:17 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DD352586-0B6D-4C9A-A7BA-FA7FA351C135@gmail.com>
References: <4741C71F-DE1C-4789-8479-68D9833BD813@classsoftware.com>
To: dev@flex.apache.org

Justin,

Don=92t you think it=92s a bit extreme declaring the PMC broken because =
some people disagree with you?

Part of building community is allowing for the fact that there are =
different points of view and just because there=92s disagreement does =
not mean things are broken. In fact, a community without disagreement =
isn=92t much of a community=85 ;-)

Anyone who=92s not subscribed to private will have no idea what you=92re =
referring to, so I think the private list is a better place for this =
discussion.

There are flaws and misrepresentation in each of your points, and I=92d =
be happy to address them on the private list where the discussion has =
more context.

Harbs

On Aug 21, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> =
wrote:

> Hi,
>=20
> I've considered carefully and so rather than resigning from the PMC =
I'm going to see if I can fix it. Hopefully other PMC members can help =
me in this. If we can't fix it I'll reconsider my options.
>=20
> The PMC responsibilities are clearly spelt out here [1], first they =
are legal and secondary to they are to build community. We seem to be =
having a hard time with the second.
>=20
> IMO there's a few things that are broken currently:
> - Recent events where calls for votes are vetoed and the attitude that =
only certain types of contributions count towards committership. I'll be =
calling a vote to try and rectify this and stop this from occurring =
again.  Our own guidelines spell out what we value for committership [2] =
- "The forms of contribution are not limited to only code. It can also =
include code reviews, helping out users on the mailing lists, =
documentation, testing, etc." this matches with the Apache Way [3], =
which of one of the key concepts is  "communiy over code".
> - Lack of openness. There been a few things done in private. If there =
is a good reason for it, it should be brought up on the private list =
first and discussed. But if possible everything should be done in the =
open, to build community and trust. Just because something was done in a =
certain way during Adobe incubation doesn't mean it should be done that =
way again. Openness is a key concept of the Apache Way.
> - We only hear from a few voices. We are possibly in danger of falling =
below the 3 active PMC members required for a top level project when =
though we have 30+ PMC members. We need to encourage existing PMC member =
to speak up and be involved or try and recruit more PMC members. I'm =
open to ideas on how to make this happen.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Justin
>=20
> 1. http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> 2. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Guidelines
> 3. http://theapacheway.com