Hi Chris, I appreciate you taking time to ask all these questions, this is exactly the discussion I was hoping for.
I do not have good reasons for your second question "having someone on the PMC but who didn't participate hindered in any way? ". I do not look at it that way. Any one being on PMC and not participating is not an issue by any means. They are on the PMC because atleast in the past they cared about the project. If they did not get annoyed and unsubscribe from the mailing list, thats great. Even once in a blue moon if they bothered to read the email or even better respond, thats more than the minimum. I have some examples where I hear off-list they do not like the software and go spread the negative word, I would not be motivated to nominate them to PMC. If some one gets on to the mailing list and they say this is crap, I would favor them and get them onboard simply because they cared to complain. . In the former case, I do mind to give them commit bits though. Your first question is what I am after. I would have nominated close to a dozen to give out commit bits. These include past and present gsoc students, academic project students, random users. If some one bothers to try out a tutorial and persists in the user lists for few months in trying out the software and comes back and complains the latest version has the same bug. I would like turn around and say, welcome on board, please fix it. There is a chance they now interested and do more and earn a PMC in no time. You might argue, why not do the same now and give them a PMC. One, because we had seen too many bad examples who literally vanish after their academic/gsoc goal or what their boss/adviser asks them to do. Secondly, its probably because I have not yet been long enough here to become more liberal. May be in the near future, I will come around arguing this is unnecessary overhead, lets make all committers pmc members. As of now, I am trying to open up so all the contributors who have the promise (but not yet validated) can be bought onboard. Suresh On Aug 6, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Suresh, > > Can you cite an example of someone that you haven't given the PMC > bit to, because you are weary that doing so would add them to > the PMC even though they don't have interest in the project? I > realize talking about specific people on the public list is not > desirable, so maybe you can give me a count or something or some > indication like "I would have nominated 5 people for the PMC, but > b/c I think they will only code and not e.g., VOTE, *and* because > we are PMC==C, then I didn't nominate them?" > > Another way to put it -- can you cite an example of someone who > is on the PMC but who doesn't participate in e.g., VOTE'ing, etc., > as being a problem with a specific e.g., release VOTE, committer > VOTE, etc., that having someone on the PMC but who didn't participate > hindered in any way? Again, don't have to name names, just examples. > > Without such an example, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish > here besides introduce a new level in-between (e.g., PMC != C) which > IMO doesn't reduce anything it simply adds (# of emails to send; # results > to tally; length of board ACK waiting period, because it's now x2, etc.) > > Just trying to flush out the thing to accomplish here not trying to > be difficult at all. > > Cheers, > Chris > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: [email protected] > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Marru <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 8:12 AM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Lowering the barrier: Committter != PMC > >> Hi Chris, >> >> Right now to get some one onboard PMC needs a very small demonstration of >> interest in the project. I think introducing a committer only role in >> between removes even this barrier and we can give out commit bit's much >> more easy and rapidly. >> >> Suresh >> >> On Aug 6, 2013, at 10:47 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If PMC == C, how will introducing a committer role lower the >>> barrier? Instead it would increase it, no, by making PMC != C. >>> >>> Sorry just my 2cŠ >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Chris >>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >>> Senior Computer Scientist >>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 >>> Email: [email protected] >>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department >>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Suresh Marru <[email protected]> >>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 1:03 PM >>> To: Airavata Dev <[email protected]> >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Lowering the barrier: Committter != PMC >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Airavata currently follows Committer == PMC, I am still a supporter of >>>> this model. I think this is the right thing to do and more over we want >>>> all the "doers" to be the ones guiding the project. I am also a >>>> supporter >>>> of the Mattman's law of Open Source which famously quotes we are in >>>> recruiting business. So nothing changes on these, but I am looking to >>>> mitigate some limbo's. >>>> >>>> I am increasingly noticing contributors who are just caring about their >>>> code contributions and not caring enough to lean the "Apache Way". >>>> While >>>> this is not ideal, I am trying to think on sustainable ways instead of >>>> one-off nudges. >>>> >>>> This thread is to re-vist this topic and see if introducing a >>>> commmitter >>>> only role and much more lowering the barrier in giving committership >>>> will >>>> reward and motivate few more contributors. The only advantage is we can >>>> safely recruit commmitters based on the signs for potential to >>>> contribute. When they make actual contributions and are thinking for >>>> the >>>> project entirely, assisting users and release process and in other >>>> project activities, we make them PMC members. This will essentially >>>> make >>>> Airavata PMC != Committters. The roles are clearly defined at - >>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles This >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> This is a discussion thread only, so every one (not just current PMC) >>>> please voice your opinion on this topic. >>>> >>>> Suresh >>>> >>> >> >
