incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:57:43 GMT
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 7:15 PM, "Rob Weir" <> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
> >
> > On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> I agree let's not make it adversarial.  But I would be interested to
> >> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC,
> >
> > I said nothing of the kind, please stop putting words in my mouth. I
simply asked why you felt the need for change. You have so far not answered
my questions and each time I have repeated them have evaded them by raising
orthogonal issues.
> >
> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
> committer and PPMC member.  So if we did not change anything, we would
> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
> of not having such a policy.
> Ross is arguing for adopting such a policy.

That is not an accurate representation of my words. I am arguing for
nothing, I am a mentor only. I am merely providing my point of view so that
the community can evaluate based on experience in the ASF as represented by
myself. I have recommended that the community evaluate further and will
continue to provide my input where I feel it is appropriate.

This is a very important part of building the community. If you want company
X to invest significantly alongside existing committers then that company
needs to believe they will get a hand in project management.

As you say that does not mean there has to be a policy saying always make
people PMC members, but perception is everything. Being clear about
expectations and how decisions are made make the PMC publicly accountable
which can reassure potential contributors.

One extra piece of information is that at least one project had a policy of
voted in as a committer first. Then if they are still active in three months
invite them to the PMC. I've always felt this was a nice solution. It allows
for very low committer and PMC  barriers, but provides a filler for hit and
ruin contributors.

Of course it is hard to define active in this context.


> I disagree with that
> change.  I think we should continue to take it case-by-case, at the
> PPMC's discretion, assigning roles as we see appropriate. It may
> continue to be the case that it is usually appropriate to have people
> assigned both roles at once.  But I see no reason to introduce a new
> rule to force that decision, when we've never had such a rule before.
> -Rob
> > Given you agree there is no current harm, and given that the problem you
appear to be addressing is arguably not one Apache expects to arise given
The Apache Way, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation (at
the earliest) to adjust this project's governance?
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
> >
 On Sep 30, 2011 7:15 PM, "Rob Weir" <> wrote:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message