>> If you are such a paid professional, sure, it's no problem >> for you, but you're already getting paid to be here.
You can specify separate levels for paid and non-paid professionals For example, for paid professional, at least one meetup/conference presentation is a must, one major feature is a must Otherwise, you discriminate those who works on HBase (or other OSS projects) professionally. As I have already mentioned, vaguely specified subjective criteria leaves too much room for various speculations, questions from one side and abuse from another side. -Vlad On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > Again, the presumption of bad intent. It's poisonous, IMHO. I think this > viewpoint needs to be justified. What actions have the HBase PMC taken, or > not taken, that cause you to suspect this? Experiences in other communities > where there has been bad faith are regrettable but not germane, unless the > same actors are here in this PMC, in which case I think the PMC would > welcome your concerns, on private@ if need be. Likewise, if the HBase PMC > has taken suspect actions I think discussion would be welcome either here > or on private@, to address specific concerns. > > If the community would like to press ahead and address a perceived problem > of lack of objective criteria, fine, but then I'd like to see that criteria > well specified, and every candidate would need to meet it without > exception. I don't think that is particularly healthy for the project. The > criteria we will come up with will strongly favor paid professionals > because they are the ones who will have the (paid) time to post numbers to > meet objective criteria such as number of commits, LOC changed, number of > JIRAs, and such. If you are such a paid professional, sure, it's no problem > for you, but you're already getting paid to be here. > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > Any subjective criteria, such as "acting like a committer" open wide room > > for а power abuse of PMC members. > > > > My 2c > > > > -Vlad > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > >> > > > > > > >
