incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: an experiment
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:05:42 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Craig L Russell <>
> To: Incubator <>; Apache Board <>
> Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 12:42:18 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > I certainly could  have handled it better. But that thread is
> > *indicative* of the problem.  We've pointed out a several now: two with
> > Subversion, one with  OODT.
> > 
> Since you've brought it up time and again, it's worth  thrashing through. The 
>kerfuffle about project roles was brought up by a member  of the "peanut 
>gallery" [sic] and I thought quite reasonably.
> Words  matter. Definitions of terms matter. Communication is broken if I say a 
>word  that has one meaning for you and a different meaning for me. We end up 
>talking  about two different things and we think we're having a discussion but 
>we're  not.
> One of the first things you learn in Apache is that there are (at  least) three 
>levels of involvement that community members can take: contributor,  committer, 
>PMC member. See "how it works, roles, etc. etc." on the Apache  site.
> Now the subversion project comes in where these are not the  commonly used 
>terms. Instead, the terms for committer and PMC member are partial  committer 
>and full committer. That's fine for the established community, but the  
>translation from committer -> partial committer and PMC member -> full  
>committer needs to be done within the project, not within Apache.
> When I  saw this month's board report for Subversion, I was taken aback that 
>the board  is expected to follow the terminology used by only one project. 
>Really? The  board, which has used the same terms for 10++ years, is now going 
>to hear  reports of full committers and partial committers? What do we do when 
>another  project comes in and uses yet different terms for the same concept? Do 
>we now  make a translation manual for everyone in Apache to use?
> My $.02: if you  want to talk about full and partial committers in the Apache 
>community, there's  more work to do so everyone gets on board with your 
>terminology. Otherwise,  communications will be enhanced if you keep full and 
>partial committers to  yourselves and translate to the commonly used Apache 
>terms when dealing with the  Apache community.
> And yes, I'd like to see the Subversion board report  amended to remove 
>references to full and partial.

FWIW, Craig's position here resonates with me more than
Justin's or Greg's.  The "peanut-gallery-effect" is just
the well-intentioned effort by IPMC members to maintain
some semblance of uniformity when it comes to IPMC process,
policy, or terminology, and these folks shouldn't get
labeled as poisonous as a result of those activities.

What happened to Justin wrt OODT was someone trying to
enforce a silly procedural requirement.  Directing the
complaints at the person who wrote the email is misguided,
when it is really the process that needs improvement.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message