On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
It is always good to know this page: http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ooo Mentors are included in this. This list reflects all people with svn access. Christian > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> >> > -- http://www.grobmeier.de
