incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: What is a good Project Management Committee?
Date Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:57:45 GMT

On 09/16/2012 12:32 AM, RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/9/16 Dennis E. Hamilton <>
>> I have no position on how the PMC is established.  I have no skin in the
>> game.  I do expect that the manner of selection might need to be a
>> demonstration that this project is self-governing and that it fosters
>> community.
>> I have no problem with whatever size PMC is chosen.
>> I am, nevertheless, uncomfortable with the suggestion that the current
>> PPMC "can't be considered as having the trust of the community."  I see no
>> evidence of that.
> Trust is also related with commitment: for example, can you trust a
> politician that arrives to senator and then have a near 100 % of absences?
> (unfortunately, that's a quite common situation on many countries...) If
> someone wants to be on the Project *Management* Committee that someone must
> show a real commitment with the project. If an initial committer did
> nothing since editing that wiki page at the beginning of time, or if that
> initial committer shows only now (and sporadically) when we are discussing
> who will continue on the board, then that person do not deserve to be a PMC
> member because that person will never obtain the needed trust. At least not
> from me.

In this vein, I rather like this statement:

"Let they that do the work make the decisions."

from this document on the incubator wiki:

> Of course everyone can have problems with life and the possibility that
> that missing commitment was because of real problems is always present...
> but not being part of the board now do not prevent of being part of the
> board tomorrow: that person just need to start to participate and show
> commitment.
> The point is: we are discussing how to build a PMC "now", with facts, not
> with hypothesis.
> Just my 2ยข
> Ricardo
>> In particular, I don't see any particular problem that the self-selected
>> initial committers have created.  The conversation about the size of the
>> PMC emerged from the PPMC itself.
>> Here's a little history:
>> Of the initial committers
>>   55 serve on the current PPMC (and all are committers)
>>   15 are committers only
>>   11 did not provide iCLAs and come on board
>> That PPMC has managed to support creation of the following, as of my last
>> status report to this list:
>>   36 additional committers were successfully invited.
>>   18 of those are also serving on the current PPMC.
>> There might have been more additional committers on the PPMC, but the PPMC
>> has stopped inviting new committers to also be on the PPMC.  I don't recall
>> any individual originally invited to be a committer to have later been
>> invited to become a PPMC member.
>>   - Dennis
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrea Pescetti []
>> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 15:08
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: What is a good Project Management Committee?
>> On 07/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>> The current PPMC, especially due to the bootstrapping phase that allowed
>> a large number of "initial committers" to enter the project without
>> demonstrating merit, can't be considered as having the trust of the
>> community.
>>> My Proposal for the next step in the PMC selection process:
>>> I suggest that each of us provide up to 10 names for the PMC. no
>>> spreadsheet - no voting - no '-1s' for now. Just an affirmative list of
>>> the 10 people you think should be doing the work of the PMC. ...
>>> We can use this to produce the next pass at the proposed PMC
>>> roster, hopefully a PMC of around 20 members.
>> This is a nice idea since it would guarantee that every PMC member is,
>> directly or indirectly, trusted by the community, while still
>> maintaining a manageable size for the PMC.
>> Of course, if we choose this way, then most of the current PPMC members
>> won't be in the PMC; so it's important to guarantee that all volunteers
>> can have a say in determining the future of the project; for example,
>> the PMC would be committed to seeking consensus on ooo-dev rather than
>> enforcing choices by using its binding votes. And the "rotation" idea
>> from Rob makes sense too, if it can be implemented easily and with
>> little impact on the project's governance continuity.
>> Regards,
>>     Andrea.


"We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
  being filled.  The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
  let the beautiful stuff out."
                          -- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"

View raw message