On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On Friday, January 23, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < > ross.gard...@microsoft.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ross.gard...@microsoft.com');>> wrote: > >> A good mentor is a guide, not a manager. >> >> The proposals might seem top down, but when executed correctly, they are >> not. > > No offense but how can you not call it top down, when the people trusted by > the original community is removed and replaced by a bunch of potentially > unknown people?
Wait a second here. I think we're talking about two different things (which is partially my fault). For existing poddlings -- the proposal is to keep business as usual, unless the podling wishes to join the pTLP crowd. And for new ones (or existing volunteering for it) the whole point of the exercise is that it will be their job to recruit the kind of mentors that: 1. board will trust 2. the community will trust Both are hugely important. Now, if you're asking the question of: why should the original community be trusted 100% -- the answer is the same as to why we required projects to incubate to begin with. That trust needs to be built. It can't be assumed. > Having only ASF members is nearly the sane as saying "hi guys, we accept > your project if you let us take over", and we ask you not do community > (only committer) work until WE deem you worthy of building YOUR community. It is NOT just their community. It is their community that needs to become an extension of ASF community. There's give-n-take on both sides here. > Remember the difference between committer and PMC please. The PPMC today > plays an important role Honestly I haven't seen a single podling where PPMC wouldn't be just an ephemeral concept. In fact, that's part of the reason I keep advoacting C == PPMC. There's honestly no operational difference today. > Not having the original community in the PMC, also means the original > community looses totally control over what is being released....is that > really fair? What makes you say that? The way process works is this: every committer can suggest a release by offering an artifact for a vote. That vote needs to clear the +3 PMC, but unless there's a consensus among committers no sane PMC would bulldoze over that. I think we're making a mistake here thinking that PPMC == steering committee. I'd say that Apache Way I know and love is where every single committer is empowered to be part of the steering committee. PMC does not hold an exclusive right on setting technical agenda for the project. In fact, to paraphrase Chris, PMC is supposed to be all about recruiting business, not so much technology. > Sorry this is not the ASF I work for an strongly believe in. A project that > comes to ASF with a community has a right to continue evolve its community > as PMC with its own trusted people, and we as members need to HELP them if > they have problems in the apache way NOT replace them. Yeah and they will -- that's why that community == original committers. > Sorry for this strong worded mail, but I really feel we risk ruining > everything we stand for. It is good to hash things out. But here's the bit I feel strong about: one of the things that make me stick with ASF is the core belief in meritocracy and flat organization structure. That's why committers MUST hold the keys to the technology roadmap. Even a hint of the fact that it is PMC would kill the buzz for me. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
