This looks like a total sensible approach. Thanks a lot Chris, this has been incredibly helpful. I will look forward for other's opinion and barge in.
Suresh On Aug 6, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
