On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looking at the AOO "people" page > (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of > our contributors". Is this a list of committers? If so, perhaps new > committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list > of Committers at <URL> has updated with the addition of <name>." Less > laudatory, more PSA. > > If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be? Or should > there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned? >
The authoritative list of committers is here: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html That has been silently updated as new committers have been elected. As for the other page [2], it has many committers, but also some mentors, and other contributors. It is not maintained by the PPMC. People are free to add themselves. Apache makes a distinction between "contributor" (synonymous with "developer") and "committer". A "contributor" is as "a user who contributes to a project in the form of code or documentation. They take extra steps to participate in a project, are active on the developer mailing list, participate in discussions, provide patches, documentation, suggestions, and criticism." [1] So all committers are contributors, but not all contributors are (yet) committers. [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles [2] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html > Don > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new >> committers since the project started. This is false. But it would be >> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website. >> >> So far we've been quiet about new committers. We have the votes, >> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list. >> >> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing >> list. Others don't. We're received mixed advice from our mentors. >> >> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes: >> >> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being >> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or >> not yet committers) feel less appreciated. >> >> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads >> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret >> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices. >> >> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising. It >> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already >> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is >> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new >> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know. >> >> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we >> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's >> future committers. >> >> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given >> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them. It suggested >> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of >> hoiw promotions were given out. And I've worked places where >> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's >> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of >> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion. >> >> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers >> then we should want this to be known. Transparency shows the fairness >> of the process. >> >> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same. But I think the >> choices are analogous. >> >> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list >> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA. >> >> What do you think? >> >> -Rob >> >
