incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Rist <>
Subject Re: What is a good Project Management Committee?
Date Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:18:57 GMT
The feedback on this approach seems to be positive.  I will start a new 
thread for proposed PMC lists and a second for discussion.
I will leave the proposals thread open for the entire week, and collect 
up the results and summarize next Monday.

On 9/15/2012 3:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:
>> While on one hand I understand why so many of us want to be on the PMC,
>> a large PMC is not necessarily in the best interest of the project. The
>> PMC should not be making decisions about the direction of the project
>> and on who gets to do what - the PMC should be mostly involved with
>> voting in new committers and approving releases. The direction of the
>> project should be determined on ooo-dev
> Since comments to the latest report, forwarded here by Rob, support 
> the idea that we are approaching graduation, it is probably time to 
> agree on at least our vision of the PMC.
> By now, everybody knows that the PMC:
> - Votes in new committers and PMC members. This indeed requires that 
> it represents all key areas of the project, to be able to evaluate all 
> contributions.
> - Has a private mailing list to be used for the aforementioned votes, 
> for discussions involving trademarks and, ideally, nothing else.
> - Has binding votes on releases and decides the release strategy.
> - Satisfies the other generic guidelines stated in 
> (a draft, but 
> the best source as suggested by our mentors)
> But the PMC must also serve, in a form we have to agree upon, as 
> governing body for the project: it is true that the direction of the 
> project must be determined on ooo-dev, and probably most of the times 
> consensus will be enough, but it might happen that a few rare 
> decisions need a vote on ooo-dev, and in that case everyone is 
> entitled to vote but only the PMC votes are binding. If sharp 
> contrasts emerge, the PMC will likely try to mediate, but still the 
> privilege that its votes are binding should be supported by evidence 
> that the PMC members have the trust of the OpenOffice community.
> 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.

View raw message