Hi all, Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns. I understand how this may look from the outside.
One point I would like to add is that Fluss has gained traction quite quickly during incubation. The community has grown fast, and several contributors who are now active committers reached that point only recently, with much of that growth happening in the last few months. >From my perspective, this is not a question of whether some of these contributors have earned the trust of the community. *Several of them clearly have*. The main factor seems to be timing, especially around the transition from committer to PMC member. I also think it is worth recognizing that the community has been opening doors to new contributors, encouraging participation, and supporting the project through releases, documentation, discussions, reviews, and cross-community collaboration. These are all important parts of building a healthy Apache project, even if different contributors naturally contribute in different ways and at different stages. *> Simply based on the fact that the proposed PMC has only grown by one member during the entire graduation sort of feels odd to me.* I understand this concern. At the same time, I think it is also important to look at the broader community trajectory, while also taking my above points into account. Fluss has built a vibrant and fast-growing community, with many new committers and more contributors actively participating. Some of these contributors may naturally become strong committers and later PMC candidates over time. Also, keep in mind cross-community collaboration with other Apache projects. In that sense, I personally see the fast growth of the committer base and the broader contributor community as a very positive signal. Having many contributors join, become active, and build trust with the community is an important foundation for a sustainable project. While the PMC composition should, of course, reflect merit and sustained participation, the current growth of the Fluss community gives me confidence that the project is moving in a healthy direction. If my understanding is correct, is the concern that the PPMC should revisit the current committer base and consider whether some committers are already ready for PMC membership? Or is the concern more focused on the process used to select the proposed PMC? I am mainly asking for a few pointers here to better understand how we should approach these concerns and what would help provide confidence that the community has reflected on this properly. Best, Giannis
