Where Jay has set the bar for now sounds good to me. Yeah review-before-commit!
I think the long term goal of committers == PMC is the right one. While I am not sure if they have it set as formal policy it seems common on projects I have observed for new committers to become PMC members $n$ months later. Being a solid active committer for (say) 3 months is good enough for me. But keeping the initial committer/PMC votes separate lets us keep flexibility to adjust the committer requirements without worrying about PMC ones. +1 on stating a formal emeritus policy up front (but keeping a relatively long timeout, other projects can easily consume a quarter). On 03/14/2012 12:14 AM, Jay Kreps wrote: > Hey All, > > One thing suggested to us by our Apache mentors was to formalize the > criteria for becoming a committer and pmc member. Different projects have > different criteria in this regard. What are people's thoughts in this > regard? > > FWIW, here are my thoughts. I would suggest we hold a high bar on technical > capability but a fairly low bar on level of contribution. I think 3+ > substantive patches plus an interest in ongoing involvement should be > enough. I think this is more appropriate to a young project such as > ourselves. Since we do blocking code reviews for both committers and > non-committers this doesn't put us at too much risk of weak code creeping > in. I don't have any thoughts on what would be a good standard for PMC > membership. It might also be a good idea to make people "committers > emeritus" after 6-12 months of inactivity. I have found on past projects > that committers tend to accumulate to the point where a substantial portion > of people are not active which is probably not the right thing for Apache > since things are decided by voting. > > What do others think? Any past experiences of this "done right"? > > -Jay >
