On 30 July 2015 at 15:57, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > I may be wrong, but I think this conversation is not about working towards > consensus as it is about having an open way for all to see how merit is > earned in the Corinthia project. > I thought it was connected issues, but of course it makes sense to publicly (in our wiki) state how merit is earned, and have the other discussion just on a ML.
> > It helps others see it happen if it can be found in open archives. > > Let's set some minimums: I propose: > > PPMC will handle discussions on potential committers including consensus > building on the private list for a minimum of 7 days. We are volunteers and > some may not be able to respond thoughtfully until the weekend. > +1 rgds jan i. > Unlike technical decisions committer decisions are not easily undone. > Proceeding carefully until consensus is reached is critical. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jul 30, 2015, at 12:28 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On 28 Jul 15, at 10:24, jan i <j...@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi. > >>> > >>> As was obvious from other discussions (in private), we need to agree on > >>> what are the "rules" > >>> for being accepted as a committer. It is also obvious that there are > room > >>> for diversity in how > >>> we apply the rules. > >> > >> Note: first, I like your framework and like, too, the flexibility > >> implicit. I also dislike rules that bind actions into rituals even when > the > >> originating context has faded. I don’t think your suggestions do. > >> > >> However…. > >> mild rant/ > >> > >> Do we need rules? I’d think that in a small project, "rules" are better > >> understood as "conventions," or even "agreements." The difference is > simply > >> that a step toward the codification of practice in the form of scripted > >> rules often—but not inevitably—doesn’t really add to the working of the > >> project. Unless I’m missing something here? I can see that when > Corinthia > >> has more people and—one can only hope—diverging opinions and the > >> wherewithal to back them up—then bureaucratic and transparent systems > will > >> be useful, as these are designed to minimise arbitrariness. But right > now? > >> Of course, as Dennis enthusiastically +1’d, no doubt I’m missing > something > >> here, and it really is the case that Corinthia needs rules now, as > opposed > >> to, well, common sense modulo open source collaboration subjunctive > Apache. > >> > >> /end mild rant > >> > >> All that said, I find nothing objectionable in the clear description you > >> offer—thanks. > > > > it is a good suggestion, let us talk about "conventions". > > > > Maybe we should also add a convention about what happens if a single PPMC > > do not want > > to work towards consensus (of course after ample time to discuss). > > > > rgds > > jan i > > > >> > >> Louis > >> > >> > >>> > >>> For me life is very simple, we are a small project, and should use any > >>> chance to grow. This > >>> means, I believe we should look at: > >>> > >>> 1) Candidate has been active on dev@ and shown interest for the > project > >>> 2) Candidate has submitted patches (not necessarily through dev@) > >>> 3) Candidate has otherwise done work to help corinthia. > >>> > >>> The proposer must make clear which of the 3 the candidate fulfills (1 > is > >>> enough), in > >>> case of 3) the proposer must make it clear to the others what work was > >> done > >>> and > >>> what the benefit will be for the project. > >>> > >>> If there is general consensus after a discussion, that the candidate is > >>> beneficial for the project, > >>> we run a vote (needed formally, at least until we become TLP). The vote > >>> should be a formality, > >>> but in case someone votes -1, the following should happen > >>> > >>> 1) The reasons for the -1 must be discussed, and may cause others to > >> change > >>> their > >>> opinion. > >>> > >>> We need to think about, how to handle a -1 from a person that either > >> give a > >>> non serious reason, > >>> or did not participate in the discussion. > >>> > >>> Please accept this for what it is, a suggestion from me, I hope for and > >>> expect changes. > >>> > >>> rgds > >>> jan i. > > > > -- > > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. >
