incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: Open enrollment
Date Sun, 27 May 2012 07:57:13 GMT
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On May 27, 2012 5:44 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > I'll see Jukka one and raise him one. I have advised potential
> > podlings to be very conservative with their initial list, and keep
> > some potential contributors in their collective back pocket. This
> > gives them a ready-made source of community growth, which is typically
> > the scarcest and most precious commodity to a podling.
>
> +1
>
> I'm less seasoned than others here who have done a lot of Mentoring, but
my
> impression is that the act of identifying, nominating and voting in a new
> committer or PPMC member is a valuable experience for a fledgling
community in
> and of itself -- going through the process seems to be beneficial, not
just in
> terms of securing a new recruit and boosting their morale, but for those
doing
> the recruiting as they debate and become comfortable with granting
privileges
> to new contributors.
>

on almost all of the podlings I've worked with a mentor has prompted the
first nomination. In most a discussion of "is it too early" results.
Keeping known people out of the initial contributor list
In order "to keep some potential contributors in their collective back
pocket" seems wrong to me. Either someone has merit at proposal stage (put
them in) or they don't (show the community how to build and recognise
merit). I don't like even mentors being given commit status without merit
(remember merit is not transferable).

I'm not sure where this open enrollment thing came from, but I've never
liked like it. It made sense on AOO since there was a need to be open to a
previous fork. This is not the case in most other projects.

>
> I believe there may be a best-of-both-worlds solution:
>
>  * Incubation proposals should have separate sections for "Initial
>    Committers" and "Initial PPMC Members".

Too much hierarchy, the ASF is flat. This is hard to understand if we
introduce layers to incubation.

>  * There should be text in the proposal encouraging people to add
>    themselves to the list of "Initial Committers" and to introduce
themselves
>    on general@incubator -- but no such text regarding the list of "Initial
>    PPMC members".

Why can't they just be contributors needing to earn merit just as they
would in a TLP?

If a new project wants to have open enrollment for some reason then the
champion should advise them on a case by case basis.

Ross

Ross

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