> On 20 Dec 2014, at 00:02, Peter Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well as someone new to Apache I’m still not yet entirely sure of the > rationale between having a distinction between the two :)
Depending on the nature of the project and what is wanted the two can be identical or not. Duh. (Not unlike principles of agile development.) Usually, social, and also code government—bureaucracy and the differences it imposes—becomes important as more people and code (as in modules expressing different intentionalities and evidencing diverging styles) intervene in the project. At that point, we can articulate the distinctions and codify them. Usually, “that point” is reached when someone demands it. The there is discussion, which can be mercifully brief, and so on. But until then, why make a distinction? > > I think for a small project like Corinthia is right now, it makes sense to > have Committer == PPMC. We want to build up the project community, and I see > welcoming people and being inclusive as being important pre-requisites to > that. > > If and when (hopefully when) the project gets larger and moves into a TLP, it > may be appropriate to have only a subset of participants on the PPC, > depending on the number of committers and their level of involvement with the > project. As an open source project, I think we should try to be as open and > democratic as possible, and I’m in favour of using private lists only where > absolutely necessary. > > I propose that during the incubation period, we have Committer == PPMC, and > then we revisit this discussion if & when we prepare to become a TLP. > Yes; had I bothered to read Peter’s point, before I inflated myself and then shared with others a lot of tepid air, I’d have seen he anticipated me. :-) But I would still keep it as flexible and basically anarchic as feasible. (Anarchic doesn’t mean, “do as you like,” which is just solipsism run amok. It means, rather, something closer to a direct democracy predicated on merit, where “merit” is proved by code and other relevant works others can use. Fwiw, David Graeber, the great contemporary anarchist, has a new book on bureaucracy, a field I studied early in graduate school and of which I’m particularly fond.) louis > — > Dr Peter M. Kelly > [email protected] > > PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> > (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966) > >> On 19 Dec 2014, at 11:57 pm, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> *Preamble:* >> >> Sorry about the fuzz, but we have to do things right, and I started this >> discussion from a wrong perspective. >> >> In my opinion it is the community as a whole who decide (within the limits >> of the bylaws) how our PPMC shall operate, therefore this discussion is an >> open discussion. >> >> As initial committers we are all PPMC, so this discussion is solely about >> new people coming to the project. >> >> >> >> *Discussion starting point:* >> For a small project like ours, there are no logical reason to make a >> difference between being committer and PPMC. I believe it can be directly >> harmful to the project. >> >> Example (another project): In budapest we were 6 people gathered around a >> table discussion the future of the project. 3 PMC, 1 committer (but ASF >> member) and 2 committers.....We had to stop the discussion several times, >> due to the fact "oooh this happened on the private list", I still wonder >> how the 2 committers felt...I know I would have felt being held out. >> >> What is the downside of this rule, with time we might get a big PMC (after >> graduation) and lots of discussions, some see this as negative, I see it as >> healthy...Apache is not about a few ruling the project, but the whole >> community doing it together. >> >> I must emphasize, I am NOT suggesting to bend or change any voting rules >> but simply to implement a procedure !! >> >> My suggestion is, that we as community, ask the PPMC to always vote if a >> candidate should be PPMC+committer using the strictest voting rules (right >> now 3 PPMC +1 and no -1). >> >> The invitation letter, should be an invitation to join both as committer >> and PPMC, but give an option so the candidate can choose only to be a >> committer. >> >> If we want this, it can be implemented in 2 ways: >> 1) A convention, where we simply ask the PPMC to always do it like this >> - here a vote is not really needed, because the PPMC can decide to follow >> it or not. >> 2) A Rule, where the PPMC have to do it. >> - here a vote is really needed (and one with a clear majority and NONE >> against it). >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> >> rgds >> jan i. >
