Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <200605101258.k4ACwAuM017776@mail.e-wire.net.au>
Reply-To: <brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au>
From: "Gav...." <brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au>
To: <dev@forrest.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 21:01:59 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcZz4TFixZHGhi6wQSmKt34p7Kk9IwAQctUg
In-Reply-To: <20060510032713.GP24519@igg.indexgeo.com.au>

This vote mentions both PMC Members and Committers as though they
Are separate entities. Please remind me, I thought it was decided
(unanimously amongst those present) that there was no longer a
Distinction , you can not be a committer without being also a
PMC Member. I did query the statement in /guidelines.html which
Reads :-

" ... However, there may be extraordinary cases where we want limited
work-related commit access (not also a PMC member)... "

IIRC the reply was that this is no longer the case.

If this stands then there is more that needs doing to clarify this new
Stance in electing Devs to become PMC Members (becoming committers as
A consequence and vice-versa). 

Such as :-

Update the Meritocracy of Roles and Responsibilities to remove
Committer as though it was a separate role from PMC Member.

Where it is sometimes mentioned 'PMC Member' and sometimes
Mentioned 'Committer' needs to be decided if using just
One of these terms throughout the documentation to avoid
Confusion.

More ...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2006 11:27 AM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
> 
> Reminder that there is about 24 hours remaining
> for this vote.
> 
> -David
> 
> David Crossley wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > > The proposal addresses two separate issues:
> > >
> > > ------------------------
> > > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
> > >
> > > So this will mean that the people who have binding votes
> > > are "PMC Members".
> > >
> > > Also change the definitions of "Unanimous consensus" and
> > > "2/3 majority" to stop saying "All voters with binding
> > > votes must vote" and instead refer to number of "votes cast".

Hmm, are you sure you mean 'Unanimous Consensus' to be included
Here? 

What about important decisions such as electing a new PMC Member
Or even more importantly removing a PMC Member - you are saying
That if at the time say only 4 PMC Members are currently active,
Then only these 4 PMC members need vote on such an important
Decision? It's not a likely scenario or the project would be in
Dire Straits but I'm emphasising my point.


> > >
> > > Add a note about the chair deciding whether a quorum
> > > has been reached.
> > >
> > > Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
> > > as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
> > > People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
> > > see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
> > > to the discussion or to cast a vote.

So are you removing the current policy of 'automatic removal
If inactive after 6 months' ?

I have to be careful in what I say here, it will more than likely
Show my misinterpretation, then again it is good so you guys
Will correct it for me. 

Devs are expected to attain a certain level of lets say
'Achievement' within the project, in terms of contributions
Which could be documentation (which is highly regarded), in
Terms of code (the blood of the project), or in terms of
Activity in the discussion lists either helping new users
Or suggesting new ways etc etc. 

This is expected to be kept up for quite some time so that
PMC Members may then notice and discuss possible reasons
For them to be included in the PMC. 
Lets face it, someone may be the bees knees with coding, contribute
fantastically and regularly for 6 months or so - and then nothing.
So will not even get to the stage of being discussed on the 
PMC list. In other words, PMC Members have shown outstanding
Abilities in whatever contributions and have maintained this
Consistently over a long period of time in order to be
Recognised and eventually voted in. Of course you already
Know all this; I'm getting to the point...

Recapping what it states on the who.html page:-

" ... The Forrest Project operates on a meritocracy: the more you do, the
more responsibility you will obtain. This page lists all of the people who
have gone the extra mile and are Committers ... "

Ok, the point? Can I repeat a part of this vote proposal:-

" Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
to the discussion or to cast a vote. "

So, I am confused and concerned, someone makes all that effort to eventually
Become PMC Member whom you voted in BECAUSE OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS AND
EFFORT, then you say basically you don't care how much or how little they do
They can stay PMC Members until they themselves decide whether or not they
want to continue. If I misunderstood all of this and the 6 month rule still
Applies, please clarify for me, thanks. In the meantime, my vote on this
Section is based on what I understand so far.


> > >
> > > PMC members can still declare themselves "emeritus"
> > > if they so choose. Nicola Ken was an example. In such
> > > a case we notify the board and remove them from the
> > > list of PMC members.

See above, and to add, a Project needs continually active PMC members
Who can commit and apply time regularly - Once a month say I would
Consider minimum to be ok. Going back to the flip-side again, would you
Vote someone in a PMC Member who contributed once in a while when they
feel like it ? 

Important decisions (i.e. that need Unanimous Consensus) need to be done
By ALL PMC Members, holidays and normal delays accounted for, if a PMC
Member can not be bothered to vote on something, then they surely have lost
Interest in the project. You can't have PMC Members waltzing in and out of 
The project whenever they feel like, They
Have responsilities and should be made to uphold those in the interests of
The community and project as a whole. Don't be soft on inactive PMC Members,
They got there by shear hard work and dedication of which they should be
Extremely proud and glowing in the achievement (oh how I am going to regret
Re-visiting this post in the archives) to which they have attained, but this
Must/should(?) continue at an acceptable rate.


> > >
> > > ------------------------
> > > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
> > >
> > > There will be one list. The PMC members will be marked.
> > > Emeritus PMC members will be marked in a different way.
> > >
> > > There will be explanations of how to see who is "active"
> > > for those who care, e.g. search the mail archives; look
> > > at changes.html; etc.

Hmm, yes Changes.html, not changed in a while has it.

> > >
> > > Add a note to explain the evolution of Forrest to
> > > a top-level project and hence the introduction of
> > > a PMC which did not include the old absent committers.
> > >
> > > ------------------------
> >
> > Anyone can vote. It is good to hear the opinions of developers.

You sure about that :)


> > As usual the binding votes are those of PMC members.
> > Using "Consensus approval":
> > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
> > The vote will run for the normal one week and so finish at
> > midnight UTC on 2005-05-10
> >
> http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?year=2006&month=05&
> day=11
> >
> > Please vote on these two proposals:
> >
> > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html

-1 (non-binding)

> >
> > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html

+1 (non-binding)

Gav...

> >
> > -David
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/335 - Release Date: 9/05/2006