On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 06:02:51PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >... > From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [vote] Process for adding committers > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:21:21 -0700 > > With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed quickly so > I am calling for a vote between the two following options: > > Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas: >... > Option #2 from Ryan Ackley: >...
I believe both of these are incorrect forms for voting in new committers. My original statement was: > I would recommend coming up with, say, a list of four people and submit > that list to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for consideration. How about by end of week? The implied part here is that you're sending a list to the PMC. The PMC then decides *in private* on whether to add the new committers, and whom. Currently, there are two general forms of adding committers at the ASF. I believe one works, and the other fails. 1) httpd/apr style: somebody on the PMC sends a nomination to the PMC list and the PMC votes privately. 2) jakarta style: a committer sends a nomination/vote to the public dev list and the other committers vote publicly. There are two primary differences (and problems) here: a) public vs private voting b) committers vs PMC members With regard to (a), the biggest issue is that you will *very* rarely see any -1 votes. People just don't want to do that in public. Especially in a healthy and cooperative community. It is very hard for somebody to say, "yes, they're good, but they just don't "get it" very well." What'll happen is that they'll simply abstain. Or maybe vote, but without comment. And dropping the comments means that other people don't get a chance to consider those words and how they feel about them, and whether they may resonate with those thoughts and want to change their own vote. Public votes about *people* just don't work. That needs to be done privately for it to be successful. This is exactly why most countries have secret ballots: to avoid repercussions against how people vote. With regard to (b), the set of committers does not always match the set of people who are *responsible*. The Jakarta project is pretty bad about this: the set of committers is way larger than those responsible (the PMC). Within the Incubator, the separation is actually quite prevalent: the committers are generally not on the PMC, yet the PMC is the group that is responsible for this project. By moving the vote explicitly onto the PMC's private mailing list, you are putting the vote in front of the people who are ultimately responsible. In my experience, I have seen *many* private votes raise concerns which are very valid. The usual result from these "edge" cases is that the group simply decides to wait for a while and see where things go (with some coaching for the person to help them remedy the concern). But I have never seen a public vote raise the same kinds of concerns and the resulting discussion. Mostly out of consideration for the feelings of the nominee, but also so that the "contrary" position-holder is not embarrassed to post their concerns. Net result: I see the private form succeed, and the public one fail. Consider the situation where somebody who gets voted in as a committer via the public mechanism. Since there isn't any real strong way to vote *against* a person, then they will usually end up as a committer. Almost by default. All you need is a *single* person to put a nomination out there, and "ta-da!" you're in. Now what happens when you discover that it really was a mistake. That you didn't have an opportunity to discuss the problems with that committer. Now you have the unfortunate task of figuring out how to fix that committer, or to remove their access. And trust me: you *REALLY* don't want to go down that path. It is so incredibly painful, that you want to have a very high confidence that when you make somebody a committer, that they will make for a great committer. While the "six month rule" doesn't truly exist, it is a very good benchmark for being able to see how somebody interacts with the community over a long period of time, to see whether they are dedicated, and to get a good look at the quality of their code. The process of voting in new committers is a choice of the PMC. In this case, that is the Incubator PMC. *However*, the intent is that the Geronimo project will receive its own PMC which means that it will be able to define whatever process it would like. Thus, I think the Incubator PMC will defer to the community to choose the process that it would liek to use. They will certainly help the community to choose a process that fits in with the meritocratic principles of the ASF, and to show some of the forms in use at the ASF. I would request that the community also considers and votes on my proposal to use a private voting system. The mechanics of that would be a private email to the PMC to nominate somebody for commit access. Thanks, -g -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/