+1 on Working Groups, the IETF also works by consensus, and WGs work very well there.
They're particularly good for letting people subscribe to things they care about, while ignoring things they don't. It'd be ideal if Apache will let us make arbitrary mailing lists. Not sure if that's possible? On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:18 PM Hoppal, Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed with Jeremy I would be +1 on both ideas. > > On 11/13/19, 2:07 PM, "ocket 8888" <[email protected]> wrote: > > well, I actually like Dave's suggestion better than my own > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > 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". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
