maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <>
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 19:39:19 GMT
On Thursday, 25 July 2013, Ron Wheeler wrote:

> The last thing that you need is a bunch of smart committed people who talk
> about doing stuff the "Apache way" but don't actually write code or
> participate in supporting users.

The key thing is it is not just about writing code.

We need people to help on the mailing lists

We need people to identify bogus/valid bug reports

We need people to document how to use/extend maven

Also somebody else said they think maven needs a strong leader... The ASF
does not want a single "leader" for a project. The closest you might get is
the PMC as a whole. There is no dictator in an Apache project (benevolent
or not)

>From outside you might think the PMC Chair is the "leader"... Wrong, they
are just the (un)lucky victim that gets the legal responsibilities that the
ASF board needs to vest in an officer of the foundation...

The PMC chair is there *to serve* the PMC.

Right now there is a need for strong leadership of this project. While the
project remains at the ASF that means a strong PMC... And right now this is
a PMC somewhat fractured over the core issue I started this thread with...

If you want to help this project, I suggest you engage this debate...
Saying it is the wrong debate actually misses the point and will just
further the festering that has lead some to disengage from this project.

There are other debates we can and should have, but right now this is one
we *need* to have, not because I want to have it, or because I enjoy this
type of debate, but because we have reached a stagnant position and it
needs to change... I don't mind which direction too much mind

> If someone is writing code that works, faster than the rest of the team
> can read it, you are in a great position. Get more code readers!
> If someone is generating more ideas for improvement than the team can
> evaluate, then add more marketing/analyst types to the committee.
> Ron
> On 25/07/2013 12:56 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> 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 integrate their work back in later if possible.
> If this is a sideways attempt to address what I'm doing in Tesla, which is
> what it appears like to me, then just start a discussion on t
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email:
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Sent from my phone

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