incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer> (was Re: When does one become a committer?)
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:22:09 GMT
There is going to be a new reminder.  Thanks for reminding me about that.

That won't be the final reminder.  The final reminder will be to those who don't respond to
the new reminder.  We are still looking at a mid-(say 3rd week) August date for that reminder,
with a curfew in mid-September.

That's my understanding.  I'll post the revised new-reminder draft here as I prepare to send
out the individual reminders.

 - Dennis

With regard to the "When ..." thread, the conversation is when is any committer/PPMC member
established as a committer/PPMC member?  My view is not until they have the keys.  No moving
into the house until you close on the deal.  Different incomplete discussion though.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 12:47
Subject: Re: When does one become a committer?

I don't think we closed on this discussion.  How long to we keep the
initial committer's invitations valid?

I was suggesting Sept 15th as a cut-off.

I thought we were going to send out one final reminder to all who had
not responded yet.  Did that happen?


On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Shane Curcuru <> wrote:
>> This is a great discussion.  One meta-point to consider: how important (re:
>> urgent) is this to decide right now?
> The discussion continues to resurface and is unresolved.  One possible
> outcome is that we rescind the committer invitations of those who do
> not progress in a reasonable time period to submit their iCLA.
> Hopefully we all agree that if we go down that path, then deciding in
> advance and giving ample warning, is preferable then just doing this
> as an ad hoc decision of the PPMC on an individual case.  In other
> words, it will be perceived as more fair if we do this as a matter of
> policy and do it consistently.
> And of course, agreeing not to decide would be a decision as well.
>> If people find this work interesting, that's great.  But in terms of rules
>> and procedures, sometimes it's fine to not over-document the rules until
>> there's a case where they're really needed.
> Since this topic continues to come up and is unresolved, I think a
> general rule is appropriate, provided we can agree on what that rule
> should be.  We don't need to address fanciful hypothetical, but like
> a reusable code module, we should design a rule that addresses the
> foreseeable cases.  And like code can be changed, so can rules.
>> Note that it's pointless to attempt to provide an individual theoretical
>> standing to make project decisions without an iCLA until we have such a case
>> actually happen; then we can have the individual work with legal-internal@
>> to understand why they won't sign the iCLA.  iCLAs are strictly mandatory to
>> be a committer, no exceptions.
>> - Shane, who thinks someone can cast a binding vote as a committer (i.e. on
>> code modifications) after they have submitted the iCLA, and who can cast a
>> binding vote on (P)PMC matters once their addition to the (P)PMC has been
>> properly ACKd by the IPMC or the project chair.
>> On 7/23/2011 2:40 PM, 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.
>>> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer?  For
>>> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
>>> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
>>> the above set of steps.
>>> -Rob

View raw message