incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:40:31 GMT
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
>>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <>
>>>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had
assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was
clear what worked and what didn't.
>>>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>>>> with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.
>>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present
themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe
my question was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
>> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set".   I'm suggesting that we take
>> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
>> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
>> role(s) that are most appropriate.  In some cases someone might become
>> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member.  In other cases they
>> might become both at once.  The decision should be made the PPMC, and
>> they should have the discretion to do this.
>> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
>> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
>> a "closed rule set".
> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If the person
chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.

The result of that will be that some PPMC members, like myself, will
not vote to approve someone unless we believe they fulfill the
criteria of both Committer and PMC member.  The result will be some
who might otherwise would have been elected as Committers, based on
their narrow interest in a specific function, say admin, but who have
no broader interest, will not be elected at all.  By requiring that
everyone be elected to both roles, you raise the bar on what is
required for anyone to become a committer.

> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more important discussion
is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC member involvement as opposed to merely
questioning and having appropriate transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we
need a PPMC member directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide
a generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors filling roles within
the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC require certain parts of the community to
report status periodically?
> Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of special cases where
Committer status only is appropriate. For example and assuming that the User Forums choose
to join this project, should we require that all Admins be made into Committers and PPMC members,
or that we only need 3? Or something in between? (Leave aside the iCLA question which could
be handled of Terms of Use.)
> Regards,
> Dave
>>> Thanks
>>> S.

View raw message