incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Date Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:26:51 GMT

On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Responding as a mentor - not as an OO.o committer...
> On 12 July 2011 23:39, Dennis E. Hamilton<>  wrote:
>> Good point, Rob. �I am not floating a proposal, more an opportunity for discussion.
�Here are some questions:
>> �1. When should we conclude that the Initial Committers that have arrived are all
that are coming and we should close the door, with all further committers being by invitation
of the PPMC?
> I'd suggest sending a notification to all who self-identified that
> they have 10 days to either submit an ICLA or indicate that they are
> taking advice before signing. The PPMC has been active in chasing
> people. It's legitimate to close the door on those who do not respond
> to such a request.
> For those who are "taking advice" I would give an additional 30 days.
>> �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.

>> �3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being even-handed
in the invitation of new committers?
> Consistency in the application of committer selection guidelines.
> That, of course, begs the question "what are our selection
> guidelines". Personally I don't see any need to define these in
> advance.
> Anyone on the PPMC can propose anyone for committership. A discussion
> will take place and, in most cases a vote will be called. If I, as a
> mentor, see someone being inconsistent in their support or obstruction
> of any individual I will ask them to justify their position. If their
> position is consistent across each case then their opinion is entirely
> valid.
> Trying to define "rules" for these things does not make any sense, the
> types of contribution are just too variable. It is best to just let
> these things evolve and deal with them on a case by case basis, openly
> and transparently.
>> �4. Is it understood why the list is being created
and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the security under which matters of security
are raised?
> As a mentor I have some concerns about this. The private@ list is for
> private project communications. We've already seen far too much
> happening on the private@ list (although I am pleased to report to the
> ooo-dev list that this practice seems to have stopped now - well done
> PPMC members).
> That being said, I can see the logic in the argument. as long as this
> list is used *only* for security issues it should be fine.
>> �5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. �What do you
want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations?
> I'll echo Shane's comments here. There is no need to rush things. Let
> them evolve naturally. Trying to anticipate issues before they arrive
> is likely to result in too much "red tape" around the project.
> That being said, again echoing Shane, I think mails like this that are
> purposefully designed to increase engagement and transparency will
> ensure that most issues are addressed in an appropriate and timely
> fashion. Keep up the great work.
> Ross
>> �- Dennis
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir []
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
>> Is this intended as a blog post? �It reads like one. In particular I
>> don't see any proposals to discuss.
>> -Rob
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"<>  wrote:
>>> We are just one month into being the Apache Podling. �It is
useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we are.
>>> The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the reconstitution
of the code base under Apache. �There is also concern for the documentation and web sites
and how they fit under an Apache umbrella.
>>> Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is immediately
able to contribute much. �We are in the process of organizing and bringing over and IP-scrubbing
the initial artifacts for the project that will be the foundation for further work. �There
is not much to get our teeth into in terms of actual development until that is sorted out.
�(E.g., we don't have a bug tracker yet and the documentation, localization, and user-facing
folk, including marketing, are still wondering how our project will accommodate them.)
>>> Meanwhile, there is also how we organize ourselves to operate as an Apache project.
>>> - Dennis
>>> The set of Initial Committers is a self-selected group who added their names
to the Initial Committers list on the original incubator proposal. �That's how the podling
is bootstrapped. �Likewise, ooo-dev participation is fully self-selected, and it will stay
that way.
>>> This means that we are a group of people who have not worked together as a single
Apache project community before, even though there are a variety of mutual acquaintances and
associations in the mix.
>>> Of the Initial Committers, a subset were eager to be on the project and have
arrived. That is the overwhelming source of the current 54 committers, 41 also being on the
>>> There are still about two-dozen Initial Committers who have not yet registered
an iCLA. We don't know if they are arriving or not. �One issue is when to close the door
on initial committers who have taken no initiative to be here, although reminders have been
sent out.
>>> It is also the case that all initial committers are welcome to participate in
the PPMC but not all have taken action to do so. �At some point, the PPMC will not grow
automatically and that also needs to be resolved.
>>> We vote on other committers the same as any [P]PMC. �The addition of two invited
committers has already been reported.
>>> One thing that concerns the PPMC (who, for all but two members, walked through
an open door) is how and when do we move from consideration of previous reputation and being
known to some of us to a situation where contribution on the podling is the determining factor.
�We're working our way through that. �The PPMC is also concerned that, although the addition
of new committers and new PPMC members is carried out in private, we be transparent about
how we are conducting ourselves and that we demonstrate that we are even-handed about it.
>>> It is not clear what the ooo-dev community wants to see and what the understood
progression to the normal rules for invitation of committers should be.
>>> The PPMC is responsible for dealing, quietly and privately, with security matters
and their resolution. �The security@ team informs us that because we have so many members
who are unknown here and also to each other at this point, a limited
list is essential. �We need to identify those few among us who have appropriate skills and
sensibilities around security matters and who can keep their work secret when that is appropriate.
>>> For this, we want to know who has been on the security teams of
and who happen to be here also. �There will also be cross-communication with other security
teams that operate on the same code base, or in some cases, that operate on the same document
>>> We will be going ahead with the creation of the private ooo-security list for
that purpose. �What we are waiting for is identification of three moderators who are distributed
around the earth's time zones well enough to provide moderation of incoming reports in something
approximating 24/7 coverage.
>>> [end]


"An old horse for a long hard road, a young pony for a quick ride".
                                   -- Unknown

View raw message