Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Hello devs,
we had a discussion (more the start of it) over on the PMC list. It is
about electing new committer and PMC members. Please read the following
thread and all the answers before you bother to answer. ;-)
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=112264416700003&r=1&w=2
This same discussion we had over in forrest land and the result have
been that forrest do not see right now the need for simple
committership. With the result that all new voted committer are right
away PMC members.
-1 that a voted committer is automatically a PMC member.
The reason for this is the following usecase. There are quite
a lot contributors who send in great patches, which is often
better code than for instance my own code.
Being a contributor means that patches need to be sent to Bugzilla
where a committer is picking them up, should test the patch and if
properly reviewed commits it.
The problem is that this is quite tedious and committers often don't
take the time because they have their own stuff in mind. There is
nobody to blame, but it's just a fact.
So there is quite a lot of "waste" and that's a pitty. So how can we solve
that?! It seems to me that the hurdle should be lower for becoming a
committer.
But what is the hurdle? TRUST! And how does one establish trust? Through
communication!
So there are quite a lot of contributors who provide great code over a
longer
period of time, but don't communicate as much on the mailing list as would
be expected from some of the existing committers.
So you might ask, why don't you tell them that they should communicate
more?!
First of all they are often not being told that's also part of being
a community, second there are people who don't communicate as much
as others!
Code contribution is also a kind of communication, but some of us
don't see it that way and I have to admit that by code contribution it's
hard to tell about the person's meaning.
So this where the differentiation of PMC member and "simple" committer
comes into play. A "simple" committer can commit code, but doesn't have
an influence (binding vote) on "political" decision, wheres a PMC member
has a binding vote.
So by making people first "simple" committer and after some more time
becoming a
PMC member (maybe) solves the problem above.
Hope that makes my opinion clear why I think there should be a difference
between committer and PMC member.
I am aware that PMC member were introduced for some slightly different
reasons
within the Jakarta community, but that has "nothing" to do with what I
have stated above.
Thanks
Michi
In the above mentioned thread you will find my stand point of this issue
but I have to admit that some answer convinced me to give up my initial
standpoint.
Over time, lenya created a "simple committer" role used as a step
between being a developer and a PMC member. I actually would see that we
elect committer/PMC member the same way e.g. forrest is doing it.
Nicola said in above thread:
"If we want to include "simple committership" as a role, I would like to
hear someone explain how simple committership will solve more
issues than it may cause, especially given the above. In particular, I
would like to have some real-life examples that show how simple
committership would have been useful."
opinions?
salu2
p.s.: pmc members, if you repeat your answers, remember not to copy any content
of private mails here!
--
Michael Wechner
Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
