On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: >>> >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions >>> about the project in general. >>> >>> >>> I took a look. >>> >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new committers, >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all about >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go the >>> Committer != PPMC route. >>> >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer == >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that point >> it >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From that >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there were no >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers to >> the >>> PMC role. >>> >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be any >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial committers >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project unable >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they understand >> the >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC. > > Background: I am a Sentry community member. > > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new PPMC > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also > encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become PPMC > members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the last > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no progress > here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a > better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are also encouraging > others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and really > striving to build a community around the project. Fair enough. Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go with Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC? From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a single commit, without any public discussion, which speaks to the concerns others have raised about decisions being made in private. -Taylor --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
