After another looks I suggest "community of peers" [1] can be a good reference:
> Community of Peers: individuals participate at the ASF, not organizations. The ASF’s flat structure dictates that roles are equal irrespective of title, votes hold equal weight, and contributions are made on a volunteer basis (even if paid to work on Apache code). The Apache community is expected to treat each other with respect in adherence to our Code of Conduct. Domain expertise is appreciated; Benevolent Dictators For Life are disallowed. More on individual participation. [1] https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/#what-makes-the-apache-way-so-hard-to-define But yes, when talking to the (P)PMCs who use the "promotion" language, we may suggest an alternative, or just avoid using the "promotion" language. For example, in the ZooKeeper community, we simply use: [DISCUSS] New Committer: Dávid Paksy, rather than: [DISCUSS] Promote Xxx as a Zzz committer, as I found in some (P)PMCs. Best, tison. tison <[email protected]> 于2026年7月22日周三 17:22写道： > Hi Ayush & Dirk, > > Thanks for your feedback! > > I share similar understandings with you. The reason I sent this email here > ([email protected]) is that I cannot find documented consensus or > previous discussion on this topic that I can refer to when talking to the > (P)PMCs who use the "promotion" language and explaining why this may not > follow the ASF culture and what is expected language. > > Maybe we should talk about the "community of peers" [1] in detail > somewhere on community.apache.org, and perhaps for this specific, > somewhat common, misunderstanding. > > [1] > https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/#what-makes-the-apache-way-so-hard-to-define > > Best, > tison. > > > Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[email protected]> 于2026年7月22日周三 17:03写道： > >> On 22 Jul 2026, at 08:18, tison <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > As the title suggests, I saw a few discussions in this form among >> several >> > (P)PMCs. >> > >> > A committer would be granted the commit bit to the project's repo to >> > simplify their contributions, and a PMC member could cast a binding >> vote in >> > the project decision-making process. >> > >> > But I don't think we treat a committer/PMC member as a contributor with >> > privileges, or at least we don't emphasize it. It can mean a higher >> trust >> > level, but all contributors are equal in contributing from the community >> > perspective. >> > >> > What do you think about this "promotion" language? What would you >> suggest >> > to establish a common understanding of these roles with a PMC? >> >> First - I'd be wary of this as a concept - we are all volunteers -- being >> asked to join the PMC is both a trust thing -and- also something of an >> imposition or burden on that volunteer. They get extra responsibility and >> work. So - really -- not a promotion at all. >> >> And IMHO it does feel very wrong to me personally to frame it as such. As >> a promotion. >> >> To me - these `extra' volunteer things are more of a burden; or an >> expected higher level of care that you have to deliver to your peers. >> >> With kind regards, >> >> Dw >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>
