geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anthony Baker <>
Subject [DISCUSS] Criteria for PMC, committers
Date Wed, 29 May 2019 17:13:22 GMT
I think it’s time to re-establish consensus around two things:

1) What is our criteria for becoming a committer and PMC member?
2) Do we have separate criteria for committers and PMC members (and thus should elect them

The ASF notes that projects are free to chose the approach that works best for them [1]:

> PMCs are free to set the bar for merit within their projects, as long as decision making
is done in a collaborative fashion as in the Apache Way. Healthy PMCs will regularly review
contributions from non-committers - both specific code patches, bugs reported or commented
on, or just helpful interaction on their project lists - to evaluate contributors as potential
committers. Ensuring that PMC members are helping to mentor helpful new contributors to their
projects helps to ensure a healthy and growing project community.
> PMCs vary significantly in the level of commitment and work expected to be considered
for a committership. Some PMCs vote in new PMC members typically from their existing committers
(i.e. the progression is contributor -> vote -> committer -> vote -> PMC), while
other PMCs always elect new committers into the PMC simultaneously (contributor -> vote
-> committer & PMC member).

To date, we’ve been mostly following the “bundling” approach of combining committers
/ PMC’s votes.  This is not explicitly spelled out in our wiki however (see [2][3]).  We
established the current criteria back in  2016 [4].  The private@ thread [5] that spawned
this discussion included some great advice from our project mentors (Roman, Kos, Niall, William
Rowe).  If I can summarize it here, it basically boils down to:

- Set the bar for inclusion as low as possible
- Read the definition of Merit [5]
- Is the person trustworthy with code, community, etc.




View raw message