On 30 September 2011 03:04, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: >> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are >> invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some >> decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show >> up at the PPMC, etc.
... > Note specifically that a committer can have a narrow focus. But a > PMC member has broader responsibilities. I'd expect a committer to > have demonstrated competence in some area of the project that requires > committer access, such as coding, testing, doc, or admin work. I'd > expect a PMC member to additionally have a strong interest in the > overall direction of the project, and to have exhibited insight and > judgment that would be an asset to the oversight of the overall > project . > > The Podling Guide [2] also supports this view, when it says: "The > PPMC should take an active role in watching committers develop into > community participants, identify those who are participating at a > community level, not just a technical one, and approach them with an > offer of PPMC membership." This is an area where ASF projects differ from one another. Some projects prefer to have a separation, others prefer not to. In my experience a flatter organisational structure is generally better. However, on a project as large and diverse as OOo this may not be the case. The reason for "flatter is better" is that people tend to be more engaged when they feel more empowered. Once OOo graduates PMC members will have binding votes on everything committers may not have binding votes on everything (this is something that the PPMC needs to resolve nearer the time). By creating the separation of roles you are creating the potential for a hierarchy to emerge. Generally we find that people will not meddle with areas of the project they are not qualified to meddle in. It's kind of hard to do so anyway since a veto requires an alternative course of action that the community supports. If one isn't qualified to meddle how can one come up with a proposal that will be supported? >> My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors >> to be both committers and members of the PPMC. I have seen it recommended >> for Podlings and I see no reason to suddenly change. Also, I expect there >> will be some culling of the PPMC on graduation to a top-level project and a >> PMC. >> > > I believe you have misread the recommendation in the Podling Guide. > If you read the complete paragraph, it is clearer. Never trust documentation in the ASF ;-) You will find many many people who do not agree with that paragraph but can't be bothered to change it (guilty ;-) I think Denis is demonstrating an understanding of the alternative view. Every year, just before the ASF Members meeting, we have the same discussion about what barriers should there be to people becoming members. Typically you will hear the oldest hands saying "minimal barriers, we need bodies" whilst the newer hands will say "some barriers, we need control". I myself went through that process. I was amazed when I was voted in as a member. I didn't think I'd done enough to deserve it. I watched and learned. I realised early was good, but thought there should be some barriers. Today, ten years on, I am of the "minimal barriers" camp. Now, ASF membership is different from OOo PMC membership. I'm not suggesting that you have to go this way. I'm saying that just because it is written doesn't mean it is the one true way. >> I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever. There has been no injury or >> damage no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership >> in the PPMC. >> The argument of "there is no harm" is exactly the argument that matters. There really is no harm in having all committers in the PMC. The decision making process respects the community as a whole. Should a member of the PMC be causing problems there are mechanisms for dealing with it (it is very, very rare). Conversely there is harm in not having a broad and varied PMC. There is increased opportunity for vested interests to take control. There are more rumours of backroom deals on the private list. There is a feeling of reduced transparencey etc. None of these things exist in the OOo podling, but when independent mentors like myself clear off will the community trust the remaining PMC members? Note, this decision is not an either/or. You can make it common practie to invite committers to the PMC but allow committer proposals to say "committer only" in specific cases. I suggest you discuss this one widely in the community and then put it to community vote since it is a very important issue moving forwards. Ross
