hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Becoming a Committer
Date Wed, 20 Sep 2017 23:44:31 GMT
>> If you are such a paid professional, sure, it's no problem
>> for you, but you're already getting paid to be here.

You can specify separate levels for paid and non-paid professionals
For example, for paid professional, at least one meetup/conference
presentation is a must, one major feature is a must
Otherwise, you discriminate those who works on HBase (or other OSS
projects) professionally.

As I have already mentioned, vaguely specified subjective criteria leaves
too much room for various speculations, questions from one side and abuse
from another side.

-Vlad



On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> 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