On Dec 29, 2014 12:35 PM, "Marko Rodriguez" <okramma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Here is how TinkerPop current runs it "TinkerPop-Contributors."
>
> 1. If you are a vendor, you get one engineer from your
organization to be on TinkerPop-Contributors who speaks on behalf of your
organization/product. (~15 people)
Understand that this is not how projects work at Apache. No company is
entitled to a voice. Contributors earn merit on their own contributions.
This is pretty foundational to our world view.
> 2. If you are working on core TinkerPop day-in and day-out you
are part of TinkerPop-Contributors. (~3 people)
I suppose it's a good place to start, but as has been mentioned it's a bare
minimum and not conducive for long term project health.
> 3. If you have worked on TinkerPop core at some point. (~5 people)
> - e.g. You were hot and heavy on the codebase for a
month+ straight but then lost interest but still want to hang around.
Perhaps it looks good on the resume why you don't want to leave… who knows?
>
We are very reluctant to take away merit once earned.
> Most people are in group 1 or 3. I was told by our champion (David
Nalley) that you can't have people be on the board because of who they work
for. Thus, the concept of "one engineer per company" is not acceptable.
Next, I don't think it is smart to just have everyone in group 3 mapped
over. I think its best to start with the minimum requirement of people and
grow from that core. Who are these three people?
>
> Marko -- has been coding on TinkerPop "day in and day out" for
the last 5 years.
> Stephen -- has been coding on TinkerPop "day in and day out" for
the last 3 years.
> James -- has been an evangelist for TinkerPop for the last 5
years and is getting the TinkerPop book effort underway.
>
> These are the most "hardcore" members of TinkerPop. Now, once (and if)
TinkerPop goes Apache, I'm sure more engineers (either currently in
"TinkerPop-Contributors" or new to the scene) will want to make concerted
efforts to be apart of TinkerPop. Through the years I have become too
painfully aware of "commit and split"-contributors ("here is a big ball of
features, merge it…oh, I can't work on that anymore, my boss doesn't care
about graphs anymore. good luck maintaing that code." --- many group 3
people are in this camp). Once we realize someone is here "for the long
haul" and truly cares about the project, we are happy to have them join.
>
> "Lets start small and grow" is the philosophy behind the 3 initial
committers.
>
> Cool?
Maybe. Seems a reasonable place to start but I'd ask, were I a mentor, why
there's a difference between your "contributor" list and your committer
list. That is, I'd ask, for each person, why they were important enough to
be on the one list, but not trustworty enough to be on the other.
