geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "n. alex rupp" <rupp0...@umn.edu>
Subject Re: committer process
Date Fri, 12 Sep 2003 06:33:04 GMT
Please, with my deepest respects to Greg and the rest of the Incubator PMC
members,

Greg, you also said:

> You've got a lot of people banging
> on the door, more than willing to help.
> Open it, already. And do it on your own terms
> rather than having the PMC do it."

Nobody here is so callous that they would risk driving away promising
community members for the sake of expedience.  And nobody in the committers
list as long as I've known them have ever remained silent about an important
issue because they were concerned about offending one another.  A dissident
voice shows more respect than a complacent one which is why I'm taking the
time to write this.

We can all take our licks here and have *nothing* to be afraid of from one
another based on what I've seen.  If newcomers need to be coached for a
longer period of time to make certain they're ready, so be it.  The sooner
they know, the better.  Nobody should fear or resent being told that, and
nobody should suffer for having been told that.  Besides, would you deprive
someone of the experience of having truly earned their place in the
community?  I've no "delusions of entitlement" and neither should anyone
else.

Nobody wants to humiliate anyone here. Case in point, Jeremy specifically
brought up his concerns about public voting procedures several days ago:

> Do we do this in public, or private?
>
> This is not a cathedral question, but an attempt
> to handle the case where someone gets proposed,
> someone -1's the proposal and has to justify it -
> how do we avoid embarrassing or humiliating a contributor?"

To which neither you nor anyone else in the PMC responded.  Given that the
end of the week has been fast approaching and the level of pressure coming
from on high to rush new people through the door has been extreme, it
becomes clear why they didn't wait three days and forced the matter of new
committers to a public vote.

Your requests below to keep the committer discussions on the private PMC
list might comply with the democratic tradition of private ballots, but it
doesn't fall anywhere near the tradition of public debate on the
qualifications of our leaders.

> By moving the vote explicitly onto the PMC's private
> mailing list, you are putting the vote in front of the
> people who are ultimately responsible.

No we're not.  We're only hiding it from the eyes of the community.  That's
pretty ironic coming from someone who has recently brought up our alleged
"cathedral" tendencies.

I'm curious how the members of the PMC can be more "responsible" than the
people who *also* invest their free time each day to write the software,
foster the community and contribute to the list, the wiki and incoming
members?  If they were "more responsible" than us, everything on this list
would be in front of them every day anyway, so there'd be no reason to "put
the vote in front" of them.  Perhaps the PMC isn't more "responsible" so
much as more "accountable", which begs the question "to whom?"

To the board?  To the public? Or to the people on this list who stand to
lose or gain the most as its developers and future users?

No one can say I'm not grateful for everything the ASF and the incubator PMC
members in particular have done on behalf of this project and the community
growing up around it.  But the time is fast approaching when they'll need to
stop treating its members like outsiders.

As always, my thoughts are by no means official around here and I don't
presume to speak for anyone but myself.  If I've offended anyone, I'll take
my forty lashings on the list.
--
N. Alex Rupp (as himself)




Mime
View raw message