Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: me@wadechandler.com
In-Reply-To: <CAET0+gZ-Mtg3HsNR0R2jHFzv4uko4KiS5pH9m3f3SV_JODf-jg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABD8fLVf3=za_jTSpRiWz4_Wt+R1OPstgJVSO93o2uRNz=iBjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <59c1e63f-ae32-7fb1-e62d-0e8f3461464f@gmail.com> <CAET0+gZ-Mtg3HsNR0R2jHFzv4uko4KiS5pH9m3f3SV_JODf-jg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wade Chandler <consult@wadechandler.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:37:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CALiWaWkpbzPh+xB-rdQVzHsJSx=CO5sbv5yAXO8u6n1Xk8AuTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142bf446a9e8d053d7f05b5
archived-at: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:01:16 -0000

--001a1142bf446a9e8d053d7f05b5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sep 27, 2016 10:44 AM, "Gregory Chase" <gchase@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying
> homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the
> technology.  If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to
> those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three
> years, and a liberal policy of granting new committer privileges as
needed,
> I think you should be ok.  Does an emeritus committer need commit
> privileges today? Only if they start committing again.
>
> And for those that want prestige - the prestige rests in being an active
> evangelist of the project. One does not ever need to be a committer to
> achieve prestige.
>

I agree with Gregory's POV on this. It is open and easy to do. His email
could be the reference for how it should work IMO.

I will add my POV

The list is a tribute and a starting point for where the project "is" when
it comes to Apache. If it is already OSS, then why new merit? It came with
merit and that should continue; it isn't a vacuum. Otherwise it is
exclusive of merit. If not previously OSS, then the donators best know who
did what or who will initially carry on unless the intent is to no longer
be heavily involved in the project.

Obviously the project now has to operate for the ASF community, but a
project needs those who know it one way or another.

If new people want in, let them show a little effort for code, and in, as
long as they can write good bug free code with tests.

If they want status, without coding, then evangelism and users both are
always needed.

Stating the obvious, but we need coders, users, and evangelism to have a
successful project and community, and that seems common in OSS and
commercial alike. For OSS, we should be as open and inclusive as possible;
it's voluntary after all. The bar for merit should match.

Obviously if someone is doing anything malicious, ever, they are gone.

I think the issue this thread is trying to address is a lack of protocol. A
protocol can be simple and open as long as it states the rules and intent,
and is the thing which everyone defers. Perhaps that needs clarified in the
incubator process documents or better followed if there. There should not
be varying opinions when it comes time to onboard a new project.

If ever in need of change and review, then OK, processes can handle that.

Lacking a protocol, or if folks don't want one, then it should be
completely up to the mentors and sponsor to spell out what to do for their
podling. Otherwise you have various opportunity for contention with no
framework or fact, but subjective opinions of everyone involved even if
informed by experience. But, even that is managed to a degree by some
protocol in the mentor process.

Thanks

Wade

--001a1142bf446a9e8d053d7f05b5--