Based on your thoughtful discussion below, I'm +1 for what you're saying. My message to you: you don't need anyone else (including me) to be +1 :)
Simply: 1. Nominate folks (those 12 people) for Committer and call a VOTE. If it passes your goal is accomplished. That is to say, just because all of the Airavata VOTEs thus far have been PMC==C, I'm now figuring out that sweeping rules that everyone has to follow don't necessary make as much sense, or aren't as inclusive as still following the same principles that bind us; but allowing flexibility and differences in opinions. In other words call the VOTEs :) Nothing stopping you and if they pass, all good and follow down your workflow to get them to PMC. On my end don't also blame me if I call a VOTE for both at the same time; when and if I do, VOTE your conscience, and try to see my point of view as well -- if we can agree on those principles (as can the rest of the PMC), I think we're done here :) 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 8:48 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Lowering the barrier: Committter != PMC >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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
