river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: Responsibilities of the PPMC
Date Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:37:43 GMT

On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> 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.

Yes, in that the PMC is an element of Apache Foundation bylaws, and  
committership isn't, if that's what you mean by "ASF policy".

> 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.

yes - the PMC is the "core governance unit" of a project in that only  
PMC members have a binding vote.  So the goal then should be to get  
all committers on the PMC.

> 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").

What is my "opinion" different from?

I believe that all committers should be on the PMC.  That doesn't  
necessarily mean immediately.

I can't think of any projects where committership == PMC membership.   
For example, mechanically a person can get committership based on the  
PMC's whim, but at the end of the day, PMC membership is subject to  
board oversight.

> 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 don't have the slightest idea where you are going here.

Projects choose the level of participation they look for before  
offering someone committership (which varies in factors such as  
skill, engagement and time).

Also, they could choose to offer that person PMC membership at that  
time, or they may choose to wait - it's not unreasonable to believe  
that people's behavior may change once they are granted commit  
rights, as it changes the social equation.

I actually go back and forth on this one - I can convince myself that  
there should be no committer w/ binding vote (iow, must be on the  
PMC), but OTOH, there are well articulated reasons for letting there  
be interactions as "committers peers" before granting PMC  
membership.  Therefore, I stick with the POV that "all committers  
that want to should be on the PMC, eventually".

However, no matter what the system chosen by the PMC, I believe that  
there shouldn't be a structured "caste" system - treat all committers  
as equal, and if you ever need to count the official PMC votes to  
make a decision, stand back and figure out why you need to do so,  
because there may be a big problem :)


> Craig
>> 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