The only change I would make is to "you'll be practiced enough when existing committers regularly don't have additional feedback on the contribution". In my experience, most people don't think they've done a review until they've given some feedback no matter what. (I've been guilty of this too.)
> On Sep 19, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <[email protected]> wrote: > > Seems reasonable to me. I’m sure that the guidelines will evolve over time as > the community evolves :) > > Jarcec > >> On Sep 19, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi folks! >> >> We need to decide on a couple of points wrt how our community will make use >> of the roles recognized by the ASF. >> >> * do we want committer and PMC status linked or distinct? >> >> * what do we expect from folks in those roles? >> >> Personally, I'd like to have a relatively low friction, well documented >> path to committership while leaving PMC a distinct role. >> >> I'd like granting of committer status to mean that someone understands our >> norms well enough to handle contributions and guide a new contributor. >> Ideally, I'd like a well documented path that a casual contributor can >> complete in about a month. >> >> By well documented, I mean some clearly defined goalposts, e.g. "review new >> contributions and make sure they meet these guidelines; you'll be practiced >> enough when existing committers regularly don't have additional feedback on >> the contribution." Not a checklist of "do this X times" but something more >> definitive than "act like a committer." >> >> By casual contributor I mean either a hobbyist or someone whose job doesn't >> consist of primarily working on our project. Essentially, someone who can >> only spend an hour or two at a time on things, and at most a handful of >> hours in any given week. >> >> What do others have in mind? >
