Hi Selim S, Thanks for starting this, it is a timely and fair question as the project is growing and the CoPDoC framing is a good lens.
To help move it forward, I put up a draft as a website page. https://github.com/apache/incubator-xtable/pull/845 A few quick points on your questions: - It deliberately treats contribution as more than code. Community involvement, design participation, documentation, and reviews all count, so the bar is not code-only. - There is no minimum commit count or numeric threshold. It is meant to be a holistic, merit-based judgment by the PPMC. - On starting a vote - any PPMC member can nominate a candidate, and the discussion and vote happen on the private list. Thanks, Vinish On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 04:00 AM, S S <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello All, > > I’ve noticed that while some Apache projects lay out explicit guidelines > for becoming a committer, others keep it more informal and less > transparent. To help align expectations for current and future > contributors (even though I learned that such a role is offered and not > requested) , I would like to start a brief discussion on what the typical > path to committership looks like for this project. > > Some Apache communities adhere to the *CoPDoC* framework to clearly outline > the expectations across non-code and code contributions alike: > > - > > *(Co)munity:* Active interaction (e.g. bi-monthly meeting) > - > > *(P)roject:* Participating in feature discussions. > - > > *(Do)cumentation:* Writing user-oriented guides, examples, and improving > the website. > - > > *(C)ode:* Submitting high-quality code (requiring minimal changes for it > to be merged), adding tests and fixing potential related bugs. > > Note (especially concerning the non-committers long term active members of > the project): Isn't tying committership merit solely to a high bar > code-wise (which is to be defined) actually creating too high of a barrier > to join as a PPMC? > Additionally, how is the decision to initiate a vote for a new committer > reached? > > Thanks for this clarification. > With best regards. >
