hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Becoming a Committer
Date Wed, 20 Sep 2017 23:30:52 GMT
Again, the presumption of bad intent. It's poisonous, IMHO. I think this
viewpoint needs to be justified. What actions have the HBase PMC taken, or
not taken, that cause you to suspect this? Experiences in other communities
where there has been bad faith are regrettable but not germane, unless the
same actors are here in this PMC, in which case I think the PMC would
welcome your concerns, on private@ if need be. Likewise, if the HBase PMC
has taken suspect actions I think discussion would be welcome either here
or on private@, to address specific concerns.

If the community would like to press ahead and address a perceived problem
of lack of objective criteria, fine, but then I'd like to see that criteria
well specified, and every candidate would need to meet it without
exception. I don't think that is particularly healthy for the project. The
criteria we will come up with will strongly favor paid professionals
because they are the ones who will have the (paid) time to post numbers to
meet objective criteria such as number of commits, LOC changed, number of
JIRAs, and such. If you are such a paid professional, sure, it's no problem
for you, but you're already getting paid to be here.


On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodionov@gmail.com>
​ ​
wrote:

> Any subjective criteria, such as "acting like a committer" open wide room
> for а power abuse of PMC members.
>
> My 2c
>
> -Vlad
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > By the way I think "act like a committer and you'll become a committer"
> is
> > pretty good advice for anyone looking to enter into participation in an
> > open source community, and a reasonable yardstick to judge candidates who
> > have been nominated. I also have no objection to documenting a list of
> > favorable attributes. I would hope every PMCer voting on candidates will
> be
> > fair and remember how they judged previous candidates, and be objective.
> I
> > give everyone the presumption of acting in good faith and that's enough
> > (for me). What makes me allergic to this discussion is words like
> > "prerequisite" and the implication that our current process has been
> unfair
> > or is not aligned with the Apache Way. I think that case should be made
> if
> > we need to make it.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > will lead to folks motivated wrongly, similar to oft maligned "resume
> > > driven development?"
> > >
> > > I find the need to have this discussion mildly offensive. Have we been
> > > unfair in offering committership? Do you have a specific example of
> > > something that looked improper? Can you name a committer whom you think
> > was
> > > offered committership without sufficient merit? Can you name any action
> > we
> > > have taken that smacks of "resume driven development"?
> > >
> > > I take the opposite view. I think the presumption of good faith in some
> > > communities has been ground down by inter-vendor conflicts and as a
> > result
> > > they are very litigious and everything must be super specified and "by
> > the
> > > book" according to some formal process that drains the spirit of the
> > Apache
> > > Way and is corrosive to everything that holds open source communities
> > > together. I don't think importing these ways to the HBase community is
> > > either necessary or wise at this time.
> > >
> > > I'd like nominations for committership and PMC to be addressed on a
> case
> > > by case basis. Perhaps we should have greater transparency in the
> welcome
> > > announcement.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>  Hi folks,
> > >>
> > >> I've been chatting with folks off and on about this for a while, and
> was
> > >> told that this made sense as a discussion on the dev@ list.
> > >>
> > >> How does the PMC select folks for committership? The most common
> answer
> > is
> > >> that folks should 'act like a committer' but that's painfully nebulous
> > and
> > >> easy to get sidetracked onto other topics. The problem is compounded
> > >> because what may be great on one project is inconsistently applied on
> > >> other
> > >> projects in the ASF, and yet we are all very tightly coupled as
> > >> communities
> > >> and as project dependencies.
> > >>
> > >> Ideally, this is something that we can document in the book. Misty
> > gently
> > >> pointed out http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#_guide_for_hbase_
> > committers
> > >> but
> > >> also noted that it's for what happens after somebody becomes a
> > committer.
> > >> Still, if the standard is "act like one until you become one" then
> it's
> > >> useful reading for people. Also, there doesn't seem to be any
> guidelines
> > >> like this for PMC.
> > >>
> > >> Is the list of prerequisites possible to articulate, or will it always
> > >> boil
> > >> down to "intangibles?" Is there a concern that providing a checklist
> > >> (perhaps a list of items necessary, but not sufficient) will lead to
> > folks
> > >> motivated wrongly, similar to oft maligned "resume driven
> development?"
> > >>
> > >> I'll kick off the discussion by saying that my personal yardstick of
> > "Can
> > >> I
> > >> trust this person's judgement regarding code/reviews" is probably too
> > >> vague
> > >> to be useful, and even worse is impossible for others to apply.
> > >>
> > >> Curiously,
> > >> Mike
> > >>
> > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message