I like both of those ideas. Either a working group and someone volunteers to setup/lead the working group (ideally a committer or pmc member) or an RM at the component level to help manage issues, milestones, roadmaps, etc.
Jeremy On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:27 PM Dave Neuman <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Rob and Jonathan on this one. I don't see a reason that > committers cannot already gravitate toward a component, and I want to avoid > adding any formal designation to community members outside of the defined > Apache ones (contributor, commiter, and pmc). > I think I would rather see us head in the direction of working groups. We > can define working groups for each component (although I really don't think > each component needs one) that is open to anyone. The working group can > meet on a consistent interval and can use that time to complete the > managerial tasks outlined above as well as discuss open PRs, have design > conversations, etc. Of course, any decision made in the working group > meeting would then need to be brought back to the list. Ideally we would > have a PMC member that takes the initiative to setup the working group, but > I don't see that as a hard requirement. I am happy to help anyone who is > interested get a working group setup. > > --Dave > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:24 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 10:57 -0700, Jeremy Mitchell wrote: > > > Maybe component lead is not the right term? > > >> ... hold the position for a defined amount of time ... > > > > Since most of the responsibilities seem tied to releases, maybe we just > > need sub-release-managers for the components? The main RM can also fill > > one of those positions as well as "main RM". > > > > >
