incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:07:27 GMT
Well, the committer intake process has changed and now the checkpoint where I provide follow-up
about them now being activated for the podling (and PPMC if applicable) has sort of disappeared.
 I will have to figure out how to reconstitute the welcome-wagon process.  It won't happen

If you want this, please provide a suggested wording.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 13:31
Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On Sep 29, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> I don't believe there is anything in the information provided to new committers that
they should do such a thing.

I think it was discussed, but then it wasn't mentioned in your docs. I think It would be good
to start suggesting it...


> - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:50
> To:
> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> +1 
>> but with reference to the list that indicates a committer who
>> has been authorized for this project.  That is the one Christian 
>> provided,
>> <>.  
> I have added this link the podling's people.mdtext page.
> Updating people.mdtext is considered to be a first step for a new committer, but clearly
not everyone has cared to do that update.
> One advantage of doing so is that it provides each committer experience in using the
Apache CMS.
>> This list is useful to verify that committers are established and
>> authorized in the system to be a committer for ooo.
>> The entries in bold identify some who might (also) be 
>> mentors/ASF Members.
> Bold identifies ASF members. Not every member listed is a Mentor. I think though you
have to be a Member to be a Mentor although I could be wrong about that.
> Regards,
> Dave
>> - Dennis
>> PS: This index finds all committers and what projects they are authorized
>> to commit on: <>.  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Whytock [] 
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:58
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
>> Looking at the AOO "people" page
>> ( I see "some of
>> our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
>> committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
>> of Committers at <URL> has updated with the addition of <name>."  Less
>> laudatory, more PSA.
>> If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
>> there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?
>> Don
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>>> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>>> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
>>> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
>>> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>>> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
>>> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
>>> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>>> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
>>> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
>>> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
>>> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
>>> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>>> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
>>> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
>>> future committers.
>>> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
>>> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
>>> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
>>> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
>>> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
>>> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
>>> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>>> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
>>> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
>>> of the process.
>>> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
>>> choices are analogous.
>>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>>> What do you think?
>>> -Rob

View raw message