incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <>
Subject Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:24:10 GMT
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> The authoritative list of committers is here:
> That has been silently updated as new committers have been elected.

It is always good to know this page:

Mentors are included in this. This list reflects all people with svn access.


> As for the other page [2], it has many committers, but also some
> mentors, and other contributors.  It is not maintained by the PPMC.
> People are free to add themselves.
> Apache makes a distinction between  "contributor" (synonymous with
> "developer") and "committer".   A "contributor" is as "a user who
> contributes to a project in the form of code or documentation. They
> take extra steps to participate in a project, are active on the
> developer mailing list, participate in discussions, provide patches,
> documentation, suggestions, and criticism." [1]
> So all committers are contributors, but not all contributors are (yet)
> committers.
> [1]
> [2]
>> 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