incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: When does one become a committer?
Date Sat, 23 Jul 2011 21:57:03 GMT
I favor Rob's perspective on this.  I think 6 months is too long for someone who has never
served as a committer or demonstrated contribution (i.e., an invisible Initial Committer),
but 6 months might be fine for established committers who then, either immediately or eventually
stop contributing.  We are talking about a 3 month rule for no-shows and I think that should
work for all manner of no-shows.  It will usually be simple enough to notify us of an extended
absence for any reason. 

I would think that similar rules could apply to the PPMC members who don't participate (e.g.,
don't discuss and don't vote at all).  

I like the 6 months rule for established PPMC members as well mainly because, at this stage
of the podling there are more of us than there is work to do in our areas of competence. 
There are varieties of learning-curve steepness.  And there is yet to be a transfer of artifacts
that we can get our teeth into, along with alignment on which artifacts get worked on where.

We will need to keep better records on who arrived when, it seems.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 13:43
Subject: Re: When does one become a committer?

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> I think election is an incorrect threshhold.  I think the comparable state would be taking
office, and that means having the Apache user name/ID and being in authz for the particular
project.  You can't actually perform as a committer until that has been accomplished.

Good, we're getting different, contradictory answers, which is what I suspected.

>  - Dennis
> Of course, my experience is probably colored by the fact that the winner of a US Presidential
Election (even an incumbent) is not President in the new term until inaugurated.

In the US we have two cases:

1) President Elect dies between election day and when the Electoral
College (remember them?) votes.  In that case, Congress decides the
next steps.

2) President Elect dies after Electoral College votes but before
Inauguration.  In that case, the Vice President Elect becomes the
President Elect.

In a sense, there was a vote to elect new committers.  This happened
for the Initial Committers (vote by the IPMC), as well as for the 5 or
6 that we in the PPMC voted in.  But there is some formality between
being voted in (say, being a Committer Elect) and having the rights of
a Committer.  Although a Committer Elect has every right to complete
those formalities, there is nothing that forces them to do so.

One way out is simply to track a list of "Committer Elects", and leave
it at that.  If they never return the iCLA then they stay on that list
indefinitely, and never get onto the PPMC, etc.

Other projects have a concept of "Emeritus" or "Inactive" committers
[1] where after a certain period of inactivity (6 months was
suggested) their karma is suspended for security purposes.  If we
adopt criteria for "inactive" committers (say via Standing Rule) then
we could apply that equally for initial committers and other
"Committers Elect" who never complete their paperwork.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher []
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:45
> To:
> Subject: Re: When does one become a committer?
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
>> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
>> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
>> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
> I believe it's our choice, but there might be a minimum. I think that everything after
the recording of the ICLA is mechanical and sometimes takes many days.
> Maybe the policy should something like this -
> (1) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer as soon as the following three conditions
are met:
>  - the ICLA is recorded.
>  - the PPMC has passed a committer VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC. (or
they are an Initial Committer)
>  - the individual accepts being a Committer by sending an email to the PPMC - ooo-private@i.a.o
> (2) Individuals are *ENABLED* to commit Apache OOo committers as soon as the conditions
for (1) plus the following:
>  - when their Apache ID is activated and karma to the SVN is granted.
> (3) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo PPMC member as soon as following conditions are
> - the individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer.
> - the PPMC has passed a PPMC membership VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC.
(or they are an Initial Committer)
> - the individual accepts PPMC membership by joining the ooo-private@i.a.o and sending
an email accepting membership.
> I think that all other rights and duties are attained as soon as the *IS* condition is
> Becoming a Committer and PPMC member will often be combined
>> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer?  For
>> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
> In order to have a binding veto, PPMC membership is required, otherwise everyone on ooo-dev
can veto.
> Anyone who is *ENABLED* to commit can undo, but it is bad form to do it without a discussion.
So, the general rule of vetoing with technical explanation and offering an alternative applies.
>> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
>> the above set of steps.
> If we use the policy outlined above then the individual has status as soon as they accept
that status and provided an ICLA.
> Now there is the question of whether the project has a time limit for individuals to
accept, acknowledge and attain Committer and/or PPMC status.
> If there is a time limit then it needs to start at a known point in time. A clear choice
is the VOTE. For Initial Committers this would be June 13, 2011 when the Apache OOo Incubator
VOTE passed.
> - the PPMC passes a Committer and/or PPMC VOTE (for an Initial Committer June 13, 2011.)
> and
> - files an ICLA, if this was not done before the vote.
> - the individual accepts by emailing and/or joining the ooo-private@i.a.o mailing list.
> I think it is disruptive to the community if there is no time limit to the invitation.
But at the same time any time limit is somewhat arbitrary. No response to an invitation to
join a community is anti-social, and shows lack of commitment.
> A 90 day time limit is generous.
> If the time limit is too short for an individual to get proper corporate sign off and
a possible CCLA then I am sure we would accept an ICLA and the individual's care in knowing
when it is safe for them to commit changes to SVN or otherwise make any contribution requiring
> Regards,
> Dave
>> -Rob

View raw message