By the way I think "act like a committer and you'll become a committer" is pretty good advice for anyone looking to enter into participation in an open source community, and a reasonable yardstick to judge candidates who have been nominated. I also have no objection to documenting a list of favorable attributes. I would hope every PMCer voting on candidates will be fair and remember how they judged previous candidates, and be objective. I give everyone the presumption of acting in good faith and that's enough (for me). What makes me allergic to this discussion is words like "prerequisite" and the implication that our current process has been unfair or is not aligned with the Apache Way. I think that case should be made if we need to make it.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > will lead to folks motivated wrongly, similar to oft maligned "resume > driven development?" > > I find the need to have this discussion mildly offensive. Have we been > unfair in offering committership? Do you have a specific example of > something that looked improper? Can you name a committer whom you think was > offered committership without sufficient merit? Can you name any action we > have taken that smacks of "resume driven development"? > > I take the opposite view. I think the presumption of good faith in some > communities has been ground down by inter-vendor conflicts and as a result > they are very litigious and everything must be super specified and "by the > book" according to some formal process that drains the spirit of the Apache > Way and is corrosive to everything that holds open source communities > together. I don't think importing these ways to the HBase community is > either necessary or wise at this time. > > I'd like nominations for committership and PMC to be addressed on a case > by case basis. Perhaps we should have greater transparency in the welcome > announcement. > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I've been chatting with folks off and on about this for a while, and was >> told that this made sense as a discussion on the dev@ list. >> >> How does the PMC select folks for committership? The most common answer is >> that folks should 'act like a committer' but that's painfully nebulous and >> easy to get sidetracked onto other topics. The problem is compounded >> because what may be great on one project is inconsistently applied on >> other >> projects in the ASF, and yet we are all very tightly coupled as >> communities >> and as project dependencies. >> >> Ideally, this is something that we can document in the book. Misty gently >> pointed out http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#_guide_for_hbase_committers >> but >> also noted that it's for what happens after somebody becomes a committer. >> Still, if the standard is "act like one until you become one" then it's >> useful reading for people. Also, there doesn't seem to be any guidelines >> like this for PMC. >> >> Is the list of prerequisites possible to articulate, or will it always >> boil >> down to "intangibles?" Is there a concern that providing a checklist >> (perhaps a list of items necessary, but not sufficient) will lead to folks >> motivated wrongly, similar to oft maligned "resume driven development?" >> >> I'll kick off the discussion by saying that my personal yardstick of "Can >> I >> trust this person's judgement regarding code/reviews" is probably too >> vague >> to be useful, and even worse is impossible for others to apply. >> >> Curiously, >> Mike >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
