geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt R Hogstrom <hogst...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Close to completion? (acl policy questions)
Date Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:09:23 GMT
<beginApology>
Sorry for sending this from Notes as the formatting gets a bit screwed up. 
 But, me non-Notes e-mail has been acting screwy and I wanted to get this 
on the list.
</beginApology>



Not sure what is being voted on but I'll say up front that I'm not a
commiter but very interested in a vibrant healthy community.  I also would
like to note that there isn't necessarily an absolute answer for any of 
the
comments below.  Its like dating, is there a
"right" answer to any question?  I think you date until you trust and are
committed enough to make a go of it.  I think the comments might sound a 
bit
wishy washy but trust is not an absolute issue.

To that end my comment are below:


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Blevins" <david.blevins@visi.com>
To: <dev@geronimo.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Close to completion? (acl policy questions)


> If you vote for this, no complaining later -- you eat your own dog food.
>
>
>      ----------------------------------------------------------
>      NOTE: I apologize in advance for using the words
>      "incubation", "incubating", "incubated", and finally
>      "incubator".  The word "sandbox" is not a verb and really
>      hard to use as one, nor could I think of another verb.
>      Sorry, sorry, sorry.  Please, please, please try and focus
>      on the content in the questions.
>      ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Do ACLs extend to things like:
>  - websites
>  - documentation (possibly donated as well)
>  - QA
>  - project management
>
>
> What is the policy on how this affects voting?
>  - Can a restricted committer -1 a change made by a non-restricted
committer

I expect this would depend on whether it was code within the project or 
part
of the contribution.  I certainly would expect that a restricted 
committer's
input would be considered or there isn't much point in contributing or 
being
part of the community.

>  - Does a restricted committer get a binding vote on the code to which
they have access?

See above.   I would expect that in most instances the answer is yes 
unless
it undermines the larger project.

>  - Does a restricted committer have a binding vote to code to which they
do not have access?

See above...there is a point where code has to meet in terms of nterfaces
and specifications that negotiation is needed. The farther it gets away 
from
the their contribution I think that impacts the weight of the vote.

>  - Does a restricted committer have a binding vote on non-technical
issues?

Probably no more than I would as an interested member of the community but 
a
non-committer.  Overall I would say no...just input and the merit of their
arguments would sway people's opinions or not.

>
>
> New committers:
>  - Does an existing ASF committer contributing to the incubating code 
get
restricted commit?

No, they get full commit.  Otherwise its a mexican standoff (probably
violated some PC rule there...substitute your favorite example)

>  - Does an existing ASF committer contributing to the incubating code 
and
some to other code get full commit?

See above.

>  - Does an employee of the donor contributing to the incubating code get
restricted commit?

I'm not sure what the difference is between a person or commercial entity
contributing code is.  I expect the real difference is there is the idea
that there is a "hidden" agenda that makes the bar to trust a bit higher 
for
commercial contributors.  I think the contributor should get restricted
commit regardless of the whether they work for a company or is a private
contribution.

>  - Does an employee of the donor contributing to the incubating code and
some to other code get full commit?

Full commit to the contribution and collaboration on the main project.

>  - Does an unknown community member contributing to the incubating code
get restricted commit?

On their contribution full commit and no commit otherwise unless it is
deemed appropriate.

>  - Does an unknown community member contributing to the incubating code
and some to other code get full commit?

See above

>  - Will there be an advantage to *not* contributing to the incubating 
code
as to avoid getting voted in as a restricted committer.

Not sure how that would play out.

>
>
> Releasing:
>  - Can code being Geronimo incubated be distributed in our unstable
builds?

Would make sense to include it unless the code itself is so unstable as to
break the builds more than not.

>  - Can code being Geronimo incubated be distributed in official 
releases?

I think that would ave to be determined at release time based on the 
merits
and projects current goals.

>  - Can code being Geronimo incubated be certified and distributed in a
certified release?

See above.  Certification I think implies a commitment to the code which I
think would be an indicator that perhaps the incubation period ois over.

>
>
> Management and dynamics:
>  - Can we handle having 2 or 3 more donations in addition to the two we
plan?

Coul get very tedious if there is a lot of debate via-e-mail :-P

>  - Is is possible that the number of active restricted committers
outnumbers the active fully privileged committers?

Could if the the Full committers and PMC allow that to happen and it makes
sense.  Seems unsupportable in practice.  I think it would dilute the
efforts of the community as it would potentially cause too much churn.

>  - How much time are you willing to dedicate in a week to managing 
issues,
documenting guidelines and general Apache Way mentoring?

Not applicable for me.  I would expect that there is an active committer
assigned to be the mentor of the project and the assignment includes a
commmitment of time.

>  - Will we be open to assistance from experienced ASF people willing to
assist in managing issues, documenting guidelines and general Apache Way
mentoring?

Hopefully so...Hilary says it takes a Village.

>  - Would they get a binding vote?

Hate to play the depends card here but I think it depends.  On the whole 
it
would seem to make sense that they do get a binding vote.

>  - Would they get and be welcome to use commit privileges?

See above.

>
>
> PMC:
>  - Can a restricted committer join the Geronimo PMC?

I think they are more than a lurker and this should be covered in the 
first
set of statements.

>  - Can a person under a documentation ACL join the PMC?

Probably not.  I think the scope of influence should be generally isolated
to their area of expertise.  However, in the cases where the issue may be
useability and the Documentaiton person has ideas that impact code the 
input
should have more weight.

>  - Can a person under a management ACL join the PMC?

See above.  I think not until they have been accepted but their input 
should
carry significant weight.

>
>
> Moving Up:
>  - What is the criteria for leaving the Geronimo incubator?

Explicit notification of intent to leave.
Lack of participation for a period of six months  (make them honorable
committers and their rights can be restored in a streamlined fashion where
they get credit for previous merit.
Shown to be a disruptive (not disagreeable, I;m thinking malicious Ted 
Bundy
like disruptive)

>  - Is it acceptable to take half or less of the code?

Of course.  The PMC has a repsonsibility to oversee the project.  I expect
this is part of the up front contribution discussion.

>  - How is this consensus reached, public vote or private vote?

Depends on the issue.  It should be clear if this is a "community vote" or 
a
PMC vote.  The PMC needs to use its power and discretion here.  In the 
open
I think would be the most appropriate but there may be times where its in
the best interest of the community to talk and vote privately.

>  - How do restricted committers become full committers?

Contribution, development of trust, and goodwill.  Each with its own 
merit.

>  - If a donation moves to full status, are the restrictions of all
committers working on that code removed?

I think an assessement of the individuals and their ongoing commitment 
would
factor into this.

>  - Are these people free to vote on matters of other donated code?

>From a community perspective yes except where there is overlap with the
technical design and implementation of their contributed code they should 
be
given more weight.

>
>
> Moving Out:
>  - Is it possible to remove a project from incubation and not accept it 
as
a part of Geronimo?

Absolutely.  The contributor is free to take it where they will.

>  - How long will donors have to wait to get this answer?

A reasonable amount of time. If the PMC keeps people in a holding pattern
they'll go somewhere else.

>  - On what basis will the PMC vote on removing a project?

Its affect on the health and direction of the main project.  Technical 
merit
and alternatives.

>  - Is that a public or private vote?

See above.

>  - Is it possible to remove all commit access for a restricted 
committer.

Yes, I would think if the contribution was removed.  However, the 
restricted
committer's contrinution may merit consideration to be moved to full 
commit
status anyway.

>  - On what basis will the PMC vote on removing all commit access?

Do you mean majority, 2/3s or 2/3s+1?

>  - Is that a public or private vote?

See above

>
>
> Potential fairness issues:
>  - Donor X gets in the incubator in March, donor Y gets in the incubator
two months later.  Sometime later, the PMC votes to graduate donor Y's 
code.
Do we graduate X as well?  If not, do we owe X and explanation of why they
aren't being graduated?

Two totally different contributions and weighed independently.  Quite
honestly, if the PMC's treatment of community members causes everyone to
question what's going on the PMC is poisoning its own community.

>  - Adam and Jack are restricted committers from donor ABC.  Jack is 
voted
in as a full committer.  Do we vote in Adam as well?  If not, do we owe 
Adam
an explanation of why?

Each based on his merit and foreseeable future contribution.  If Jack 
fixed
738 bugs, impacted several other components and made the project move
forward and Adam added comments to code I think the answer is clearer.

>  - Bill and Ben are restricted committers from donor QRS.  Bill and Ben
are having a hard time getting really involved.  Eric is an Apache 
committer
from another project who started working with the donated code and was 
made
a restricted committer.  The PMC decides to vote Eric in as a full 
Geronimo
committer.  Do we make Bill and Ben full committers as well?  If no, how 
do
we handle Bill and Ben's expectations?

Absolutely not, based on merit and merit is subjective but should be
obvious.
>
>
>


Regards,

Matt Hogstrom
STSM, WebSphere Technology Institute
Phone: (919)656-0564 (office and cell)
Internet e-mail: hogstrom@us.ibm.com

Assistant:  Michelle Reed
Phone: 1-919-543-0588 (T/L: 441-0588) 
E-mail: mreed@us.ibm.com 
Notes mail: Michelle Reed/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 

Mime
View raw message