maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Should the Maven PMC be an example of how we want the Maven Community to behave (was Re: svn commit: r1506778 - /maven/site/trunk/content/markdown/
Date Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:55:13 GMT
All what-ifs. The decisions, as I said, should be made on the typical 6-12 month period of
contribution. Everything is encapsulated there: the code done, how it was introduced, how
it was delivered and if there were no issues then that can be the basis to make a decision.
Everything outside the bounds of that is speculation.

On Jul 25, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Stephen Connolly <> wrote:

> The Apache Foundation values Community over Code.
> Merit is thus not just a question about writing "the best code" but helping
> and fostering the community around that code.
> This in deciding committers we need people who are "good enough" *both*
> socially and technically. This can be a mix, eg one very good technical
> person who is poor socially can be counterweighted by a good social person
> who is (comparatively poor technically... But sufficiently socially aware
> of their technical ability)
> If you don't like "community over code", then Apache may not be the place
> for you... And that's ok.
> But as you step up in engagement with an Apache community, you should be at
> least ok with the ASF values.
> How that impacts what it means to be on the PMC is therefore relevant.
> Should it be a strong step and we only take people into the PMC that
> repeatedly demonstrate that they value the community over code (large code
> dumps from long running private forks are not community friendly to a lot
> of people's mind... Repeatedly causing conflict within the community is
> another)? Or should we say the PMC is just to perform the legal duty and
> leave the "religion" to members of the ASF?
> That is what needs to be answered
> On Thursday, 25 July 2013, Sankaran, Nambi wrote:
>> +1
>> The candidates should be people who contribute in terms of code/patch.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jason van Zyl []
>> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:56 AM
>> To: Maven Users List
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should the Maven PMC be an example of how we want
>> the Maven Community to behave (was Re: svn commit: r1506778 -
>> /maven/site/trunk/content/markdown/
>> On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Stephen Connolly <
>>> wrote:
>>> As part of trying to kick this project back to life, we need to grow
>>> both committers and the PMC.
>> You don't need either. You need people who do work. People who do work may
>> happen to be a committer or PMC member but you have it backward. You need a
>> lot of people who do a lot of work to drive a project forward.
>>> One of the issues with growing either is determining if potential
>>> candidates are the "right sort of person".
>> People who do work. I'm not sure how you decide the "right sort of person"
>> if it's not based in the actual contributions to the project. Not what
>> might be contributed, but what has actually been contributed.
>>> There is a disagreement in the PMC as to whether "dedication to the
>>> Maven project community" is relevant to such discussions.
>> Are not people who do work dedicated? Are not people who have done the
>> most work the most dedicated? To me doing work is the whole basis of a
>> meritocracy, doing work is table stakes for being on the PMC and is first
>> condition at least in a meritocracy.
>>> For growing committers, this is usually a small issue, if at all.
>>> For growing the PMC it can be quite contentious, especially when
>>> considering "controversial" candidates.
>> Discussions should be about the work that is being done on the project.
>> Everything outside of that is not within the purview of the discussion. How
>> can it be? It's generally looking at the contributions over the last 6
>> months or a year and making a decision based on the merit of that work.
>>> In an effort to try and harmonise the PMC, I - as one of the fence
>>> sitters
>>> - started this debate... In essence calling on that group that trumps
>>> the PMC... ie the community.
>>> John posted the proposed - remember we are CTR not RTC - addition to
>>> the page I started, at least as a stalking horse (or perhaps it is his
>>> opinion... I will leave it up to him to state his position)
>>> On Thursday, 25 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>> So what's outlined in those paragraphs have counter examples at the
>>>> ASF. I do not believe it is a bad thing to have alternative
>>>> distributions or forks, and it doesn't matter where they are. What
>>>> you are saying is that committers are obliged to share all their work
>>>> with other committers. Which is more coercion than a matter of
>>>> choice. For all work that happens within the bounds of the ASF
>>>> absolutely. Core changes should not be made projects without
>>>> discussion. That's a good rule and helps with stability. For work
>>>> that happens outside the bounds of the ASF an author is obliged to do
>>>> nothing of the sort and the assert as much is absurd quite honestly.
>> What right does the ASF have over work that is not done at Apache?
>>>> In fact there are people on the ASF Board who belong to companies
>>>> that have long standing forks and/or alternative distributions of ASF
>> projects.
>>>> Look at Hadoop: there are two companies that have people on PMCs who
>>>> maintain alternative distributions with code that does not exist in
>>>> standard distributions. Both Cloudera and HortonWorks maintain
>>>> versions of Hadoop that are not compatible and/or have different code
>>>> than the version from Apache. There is selective patching and
>>>> additions made to try and provide a better distribution of Hadoop. I
>> don't think this is a bad thing.
>>>> This also happens with Cassandra and the people who work at Datastax
>>>> where an alternative distribution is made. I don't know as much about
>>>> what is in those distributions insofar as code that doesn't exist in
>>>> the standard Apache distribution. Again, I don't think this is a bad
>>>> thing. I'm sure they would all tell you that they are trying to make
>>>> a better version of said project, they work with customers, work at a
>>>> different pace and hope to
>> in---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <javascript:;>
>> For additional commands, e-mail:<javascript:;>
> -- 
> Sent from my phone



Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven

A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
be omnipotent for a while.

  -- Jakob Burckhardt

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message