incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Date Wed, 30 May 2007 13:56:14 GMT
Hi Yoav,

On May 30, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 5/30/07, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>> Personally, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list for a
>> new committer on a podling, including references to the PPMC
>> discussion and vote, I would be inclined to vote for that committer.
>> On the other hand, if I saw a vote on the incubator private PMC list
>> that just offered the usual so-and-so is a great contributor, I'd
>> have no real way to see if the PPMC was really learning its job.
>
> You're not the first one to have mentioned this approach.  The thing
> that troubles me in this approach is that it distorts the meaning of
> +1/0/+1 votes with respect to committership.
>
> To me, a +1 vote on someone becoming a committer means I've personally
> reviewed the person's contributions (in terms of code, mailing list
> activity, etc.) in decent depth.

In a TLP PMC, I agree that a +1 should mean due diligence. PMC  
members should be aware of contributions made by non-committers, and  
the [DISCUSSION] before the [VOTE] should uncover any issues.

Which implies that due diligence really should be done during  
[DISCUSS] and not wait until [VOTE].
>
> It does NOT mean I trust a bunch of other people to form my opinion
> for me.  If, for whatever reason (for example a long holiday weekend),
> I haven't had a chance to look at the person's history, and a vote is
> required right now, a 0 seems more correct.

For a TLP PMC, I agree. But if there is some reason to delay the  
vote, I don't have any trouble with an incubator PMC member  
requesting an extension.
>
> Voting +1 explicitly without due diligence just so someone can reach a
> 3 +1 bar seems wrong to me.  I guess there do exist other options,
> like asking for the vote to be open longer, saying explicitly that my
> +1 is for the process and the PMC without reviewing the person, and
> others.  So maybe this is soluble and OK after all.  I'm just thinking
> out loud here...

My main argument here is that the incubator is not a normal project.  
The role of the incubator PMC is to guide podlings in the way of  
Apache. And a big part of the way is learning how to grant commit  
privileges to people who demonstrate to the project that they deserve  
it.

I'm also very aware that most incubator PMC members simply don't have  
the time to perform due diligence on requests for commit access for  
podlings. So what I'm proposing allows incubator PMC members to  
perform due diligence if they want to, or simply provide oversight of  
the PPMC's actions on new committers.

Craig

>
> Yoav
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message