incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Whytock <dwhyt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:57:31 GMT
Looking at the AOO "people" page
(http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) 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 <robweir@apache.org> 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
>

Mime
View raw message