river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Responsibilities of the PPMC
Date Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:41:55 GMT

On Feb 18, 2007, at 6:40 PM, John McClain wrote:

> I think "reasonably high bar for commit to ensure working social  
> and technical compatibility, and then faster PMC" is a reasonable  
> place to start (understanding that it may well be imposable to  
> change once we start....)

According to ASF policy, committership and PMC membership are  
independent. The suggestion has been made that a good policy for a  
PMC (and by extension a PPMC) is to have all committers who have the  
time to do so to become members of the PMC as well.

Geir expresses a different opinion, if I'm reading correctly. He  
suggests that committers not become PMC at the same time but later  
("faster PMC"). I'd like to understand what extra demonstration of  
commitment a committer should have in order to become a member of  
PMC. To me, the relatively high bar of committer plus willingness to  
serve should be sufficient.

Did I capture the essence of the distinction, Geir?

> I think "initial committer list == initial PPMC" is fine too.
> Jim Hurley wrote:
>> I am +1 for this position/proposal.  Can others on the list
>> please state your opinion (I think this will be a healthy
>> activity for us).
>> Geir - I am assuming that we're going to make
>> initial committer list == initial PPMC, though.  Cool
>> with that?
>> thanks -Jim
>> On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:21 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:14 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>> My personal taste lately is a reasonably high bar for commit to  
>>>>> ensure working social and technical compatibility, and then  
>>>>> faster PMC.
>>>> Given the nature of the ASF and the high quality and consistency  
>>>> of the
>>>> codebase brought in I'm inclined to go for you personal taste.
>>>> In theory it might be possible to come up with a completely  
>>>> different
>>>> process that would be a better fit, but for me it will be a  
>>>> waste of
>>>> time to start thinking of that and why not try something that  
>>>> has proven
>>>> itself on a few occasions.
>>> But note that the bar isn't really that high overall - to me it's  
>>> more about social compatibility than technical prowess, because  
>>> someone who understands their limits, works well with others, and  
>>> is willing to learn is a treasure :)
>>> geir
>>>> --Mark

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message