Hi All, I can definitely see the value in having rules that allow for discussion and some subjective assessment of podlings by the IPMC.
I think some additional detail (best practice style ?) around what a diverse community looks like from various angles would be really helpful for podling projects. Some of the angles discussed recently came as a surprise to me and it'd be good to see what other people's suggestions would be. For example: - Committer activity over a given period i.e. what should this look like, how diverse should this be, what would a problematic position be, on trunk/branches etc ? - PMC make up. We've taken a slightly different approach to PMC composition (no bar to entry beyond the committer bar, but on a committer requested basis), thinking it applicable. Recent discussions have highlighted that the PMC make up is perhaps more important than general committer composition on a project and thus we should strive to make it diverse by encouraging (nominating) committers on to the PMC for diversity reasons ? - Code vs documentation weighting. Some projects have contributers whose focus is specialised in a particular area like documentation. What do we include when considering diversity from this perspective i.e. document changes, svn commits, JIRAs created, release management tasks - List contribution. I think this one is tricky to measure, as we all have different ways of working. Some of us (me :-) speak a lot, others less so but perhaps in a more precise fashion and are effective. We include list contribution as one of the factors assessed before committer-ship. I'd have hoped that would be enough, but maybe not all projects assess this in the same way ? In conclusion, I can see that no objective bar applies in some of these areas. I do think that the IPMC (and others) views on what a good example looks like or what some differing, but diverse, projects look like would be helpful. I've left out 'legally independent' (argh) but I thought that the idea of salaried % was a good one. Maybe there's some scope for a set of measures and a guide around the must-haves & the nice-to-haves and some idea that you must not fail the diversity check on more than x nice-to-haves ? Hth, Regards, Marnie On 3/27/08, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Endre Stølsvik wrote: > >> Thilo Goetz wrote: > >>> Make it absolutely clear that the diversity of the community > >>> will be judged by the IPMC based on the overall conduct of > >>> the project, mailing list, commit activity etc. > > > > I'm not sure that "diversity" and "conduct" are really mapping that > way. A non-diverse community can conduct itself properly and well, but > still not be diverse. And although conduct is important, we do place value > on demonstrated diversity, as well. I'm afraid that we can give you > examples of where one or the other was present, but arguably not both, and > we've had to deal with the consequences later. So we all try to learn from > prior experiences, and apply that in our current and future judgments. > > My quote is a bit out of context like that. What I meant to > convey was that it is not sufficient that there *be* diversity > (in the sense that 3 independent committers exist). The business > of the project must be conducted by a diverse set of people. At > least that's what I got out of the recent discussions. > > --Thilo > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
