incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members
Date Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:51:32 GMT
Clarifications inline.

On 6/24/2011 11:21 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> Hello Rob, * -- see below
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Rob Weir<apache@robweir.com>  wrote:
>
>> Since almost all of us are new to Apache we're learning a lot about
>> how Apache projects organize themselves.  Based on my reading, I
>> understand that Apache projects have three degrees of participation:
>>
>> 1) Developer (or Contributor might be the preferred term, since it
>> doesn't depend on coding), who is a project member that contributes
>> patches, helps with support, reports bugs, etc.  The main thing they
>> cannot do is commit changes directly to the product repository.  They
>> need to submit patches, which are then reviewed and checked in by a
>> "committer".
>>
>> 2) Committers are elected based on their sustained contributions to
>> the project.  They have an apache userid and email alias.  They can
>> commit changes to the repository.  They are also responsible for
>> reviewing patches submitted by other contributors.  A Committer must
>> have an ICLA on file.
>>
>
> What "substantially" is the difference between #1 and #2? I mean in terms of
> actual actions. I submitted a CLA yesterday, and was told I needed to "voted
> in", presumably for #1....

Apache projects are based on merit.  If you show merit - i.e. are 
working constructively over a period of time on the project's lists, 
submitting patches, working on the wiki, whatever - then the project's 
(P)PMC will notice, hopefully have a [VOTE], and will offer you a spot 
as a committer.  Being a committer on a project is not something you can 
get by simply requesting, it's something offered by the PMC, once you 
have shown you have an active interest in continuing to work on the project.

> What I would LIKE to do is make some simple changes
> to what Apache considers our "primary" web site,
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>
> for this, I am told/see, I need an Apache userid, which to my knowledge i do
> not have. So, how to to go about this...

For the time being, the best thing to do is provide some patches. 
Patches using subversion for the site itself are easiest, but it'd still 
be a good start to see specific descriptions and text that you'd propose 
adding to specific pages.

And see below as to what the "primary" website is.

>
>
>> 3) Project Management Committee (PMC) are Committers or Contributors
>> who are elected, based on merit, to help provide oversight to the
>> project.  They approve releases and elected new Committers and PMC
>> members.
>>
>
> With respect to this. One of the first things I would put on our "new" site
> is the actual list of our PMC along with some better instructions as to what
> one is supposed to do.

Yes, projects should always have a "Team" or "Who we are" section on the 
website.  Actually, that should probably be part of the branding 
requirements, since the aspect of the community behind a project is a 
key part of the Apache Way...

> I am still VERY confused over the use of
>
>   http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
>
> vs
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html

This distinction is for all podlings, because they are not yet - 
technically - Apache projects.  Thus podlings need to publish two sets 
of information: the obvious homepage, for the public; and separately, 
metadata about how the project is governing itself, for the Incubator.

http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html is metadata 
about the *project* and community status, and IP clearances, etc. as a 
future Apache project.  The audience is the Incubator PMC - who will 
decide in the future if this podling is ready to graduate - and in 
particular for this project's PPMC, who are responsible for ensuring all 
the checklist items on that page are completed, to show that this 
podling is functioning properly by Apache rules.

You're probably more interested in 
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which is the public-facing 
homepage of the project, and is what the rest of the world should be 
looking at to learn about where Apache OpenOffice is going.

>
>
> but if you look at any of the other Apache project websites, I think you'll
> get a general idea of the "look and feel" of them.

Note that the look and feel is up to each project to decide for itself. 
  There are a set of minimal branding requirements - things like 
trademarks, links to the main apache.org site, etc. that are required, 
but otherwise, it's up to each project to decide what and how to build 
it's website(s).

- Shane
>
> OK, I KNOW we have a LOT to discuss. But, I would just like to "fix up" the
> main site a bit, so people coming over to have a look, actually have
> something reasonable to look at and have some idea about what's going on.
>
> Thanks, and please vote me in for an Apache ID. :)
>
>
>> As the Apache OpenOffice podling was bootstrapped, all of the
>> volunteers who signed up on the wiki, before the vote, were
>> automatically able to become Commtters and PPMC members.  But to
>> actually take on those roles, a number of steps needed to occur,
>> mainly dependent on the new member submitting the Apache ICLA.  Once
>> that is done, account creation, etc. takes some time, but is routine.
>>
>> What we need to decide going forward is how we define the details of
>> the Contributor/Committer/PPMC roles.
>>
>
> yes...some of this is already defined vis a vis Apache, but I don't know how
> they're maintained.
>
>
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> 1) In the future, will all Committers be PPMC members?  In other
>> words, will these two groups be identical?  I've heard that other
>> Apache projects have a subset of Committers serve on the PMC, but they
>> rotate membership, so all Committers get a chance to be on the PMC.
>>
>
> Boy, I would not think this group would be identical. The PPMC votes on all
> new additions. I think it might unwieldy, but ???
>
>
>> 2) If the Committer and PPMC groups are not identical, then what
>> criteria should we use to determine who becomes a PPMC member?
>>
>
> maybe define a structure for the PPMC and vote on the PPMC membership from
> the current community?
>
>
>> 3) If someone is offered the role of Committer, how long do they have
>> to sign ICLA?
>>
>> 4) If someone is an incredible contributor to the project, say in
>> testing or event planning, can they become a PPMC member?   Would they
>> need to sign the ICLA even if they are never actually need to commit
>> project resources?  In other words, can someone be a PMC member
>> without being a Committer?
>
>
> why not?
>
>
>>   Or should we think of these as being
>> progressive degrees of involvement, strictly Contributor -->  Committer
>> -->  PMC member?
>>
>
> Well I don't see why. I see PMC more as "managers" but that's just my
> opinion.
>
>
>>
>> 5) Is there an term limit on PPMC membership, or criterion for
>> sustained contributions and activity level?  In other words, is it a
>> case of "Once elected, always a PMC member"?
>>
>> 6) Similar for Committers.  Is there a minimum threshold level of
>> activity that is needed to sustain that role?
>>
>
> good question...and one that should be addressed if no other reason then
> security to the site(s).
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message