incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Date Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:18:11 GMT
Hi Kay,

I think there is a conflict of expectations and it is something that we need to address.

The PPMC is not only former/current contributors and we don't all know each
other.  And some of us are acquainted in contexts that have nothing to do with
 (I'm at a forgetful age, but I don't think you or I have had any direct experience of each
other's contributions outside of ooo-dev, for example.)

In some sense, the most effective way to be seen and known at the PPMC is to contribute in
all of the (hopefully-increasing) ways there are to contribute on ooo-dev.

Whether we should be fast-tracking notable contributors to in some manner or
whether we should have the Apache meritocracy take over in a strict way is something that
the PPMC has to deal with.  You've hear one mentor assert the second case.  

The composition of the PPMC is an accident of birth (and timing).  The presumption is that
we will do the right thing in growing this project into a thriving activity that merits advancement
to an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  That is what the PPMC job is, no matter what we might
have individually expected on arrival.  Community involvement is also a success factor.

How can we navigate the invitation of further committers in a responsible way?

What are your and other's further thoughts?

 - Dennis


It is true that it is a short time from June 1 (announcement of the incubator proposal and
discussions on to June 10 (commencement of the ballot to accept
the proposed incubator project).

I'm not sure it was a short time for a typical incubator proposal.  The gating factors seem
to be that (1) there was considered to be a sufficient list of Initial Committers and mentors
for starting a podling of the size and ambitions anticipated for, (2) the proposal
had been refined enough, and (3) the discussion on various issues raised by commenters had
died down enough to consider it being time to vote.  The Incubator PMC were the binding voters
in this case.

The idea of needing to make outreach to some broad community or provide time to engage that
community wasn't a prominent consideration, as I recall.  Because of the -
LibreOffice schism, a number of experienced Apache folks went to TDF lists to inform participants
there and to discuss how Apache operates and what can reasonably be expected.

I have no knowledge of the communications that happened on lists and forums frequented by contributors.  A substantial proportion of participants appear
to be among the Initial Committers and there are more, such as yourself, who have become active
on ooo-dev since.

That's what happened that was visible to me.  (I saw the announcement on June 1 and registered
on the wiki and the incubator list the same day.  My iCLA was sent in two days later and one
week later I received confirmation that it was registered.  It is clearly an accident of timing
that it came to my attention immediately.  That I acted on it was my own sense and excitement
over the opportunity.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [] 
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 12:27
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains

On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Responding as a mentor - not as an OO.o committer...
[ ... ]
>> �2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an established
pattern of contribution on the project:<>.
>> �2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- be
taken into consideration?
>> �2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all?
> Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that
> matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past
> contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project
> everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went
> before.

One comment on this. I believe MANY past 
contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, 
this remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well 
about June 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged.

I don't know how this information was supposedly made known, but, 
well...a LOT of folks were NOT informed.

[ ... ]

View raw message