incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:04:02 GMT
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org> wrote:
> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are invited to
also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some decline being on the PPMC,
some accept, some accept but don't actually show up at the PPMC, etc.
>
> A question was raised at the PPMC whether that practice should be continued.
>
> One alternative would be to invite people to be committers and to invite committers to
become PPMC members separately.
>
> Another alternative would be to decide on each individual consideration, whether to invite
as committer or as committer plus PPMC.
>
> This discussion is to find out what the sentiments in the ooo-dev community are on this
subject.  It is also a way to learn what your questions are and endeavor to answer them.
>

Committer and PMC member are two different roles.  As part of the
podling bootstrapping process all initial committers were also made
PMC members.

You can see the roles defined on the "How the ASF works page" [1]:

"A committer is a developer that was given write access to the code
repository and has a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on
file. They have an apache.org mail address. Not needing to depend on
other people for the patches, they are actually making short-term
decisions for the project. The PMC can (even tacitly) agree and
approve it into permanency, or they can reject it. Remember that the
PMC makes the decisions, not the individual people."

A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to
merit for the evolution of the project and demonstration of
commitment. They have write access to the code repository, an
apache.org mail address, the right to vote for the community-related
decisions and the right to propose an active user for committership.
The PMC as a whole is the entity that controls the project, nobody
else."

Note specifically that a committer can have a narrow focus.   But a
PMC member has broader responsibilities.  I'd expect a committer to
have demonstrated competence in some area of the project that requires
committer access, such as coding, testing, doc, or admin work.  I'd
expect a PMC member to additionally have a strong interest in the
overall direction of the project, and to have exhibited insight and
judgment that would be an asset to the oversight of the overall
project .

The Podling Guide [2] also supports this view, when it says:  "The
PPMC should take an active role in watching committers develop into
community participants, identify those who are participating at a
community level, not just a technical one, and approach them with an
offer of PPMC membership."

So PPMC membership is seen as an additional step, after a committer
starts showing community contributions, not merely technical ones.
The Guide also says, "It should be a goal of a podling to have all
committers participate in the PPMC".  I agree with that as goal, just
as I agree that it should be a goal for contributors to eventually
become committers.  That is part of community development.  But this
occurs as a process.  We should not conflate the roles beyond what was
necessary when the project was bootstrapped.

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html


-Rob

>  - Dennis
>
> SOME CONTEXT
>
> The initial committers, those who were signed up on the original podling proposal, are
automatically grandfathered into the project as committers and PPMC members.  There are still
some of those who have not shown up, some have submitted iCLAs but not gone farther, some
do not respond to follow-up e-mails etc.  Although there was discussion here on ooo-dev about
having an use-by date on the Initial Committer invitations, action has not been taken to offer
a last-chance and a deadline at this point.  (I think that has been my action; I have not
given it any priority.)
>
> MY PREFERENCE
>
> Since, I am speaking first, here's my view.
>
> My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors to be both
committers and members of the PPMC.  I have seen it recommended for Podlings and I see no
reason to suddenly change.  Also, I expect there will be some culling of the PPMC on graduation
to a top-level project and a PMC.
>

I believe you have misread the recommendation in the Podling Guide.
If you read the complete paragraph, it is clearer.

> I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever.  There has been no injury or damage
no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership in the PPMC.
>
> The current practice exposes more contributors to the workings of the PPMC, and it also
provides a way for contributors who are not exclusively focused on development to offer their
contributions in yet another way.  Part of the challenge of the incubator is to develop a
sustainable activity for continuing renewal of participation in the face of contributor, committer,
and PPMC member turnover.  It is the initial PPMCs challenge to foster that and live it.
>

If we operate transparently, as we are here, then everyone is exposed
to "the workings of the PPMC".

> The way to develop a resilient, sustainable project, is to keep PPMC membership open
to new committers for now.
>
> That's one view.  There are many more.  What are they?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message