2012/9/16 Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> > I have no position on how the PMC is established. I have no skin in the > game. I do expect that the manner of selection might need to be a > demonstration that this project is self-governing and that it fosters > community. > > I have no problem with whatever size PMC is chosen. > > I am, nevertheless, uncomfortable with the suggestion that the current > PPMC "can't be considered as having the trust of the community." I see no > evidence of that. >
Trust is also related with commitment: for example, can you trust a politician that arrives to senator and then have a near 100 % of absences? (unfortunately, that's a quite common situation on many countries...) If someone wants to be on the Project *Management* Committee that someone must show a real commitment with the project. If an initial committer did nothing since editing that wiki page at the beginning of time, or if that initial committer shows only now (and sporadically) when we are discussing who will continue on the board, then that person do not deserve to be a PMC member because that person will never obtain the needed trust. At least not from me. Of course everyone can have problems with life and the possibility that that missing commitment was because of real problems is always present... but not being part of the board now do not prevent of being part of the board tomorrow: that person just need to start to participate and show commitment. The point is: we are discussing how to build a PMC "now", with facts, not with hypothesis. Just my 2¢ Ricardo > > In particular, I don't see any particular problem that the self-selected > initial committers have created. The conversation about the size of the > PMC emerged from the PPMC itself. > > Here's a little history: > > Of the initial committers > > 55 serve on the current PPMC (and all are committers) > 15 are committers only > 11 did not provide iCLAs and come on board > > That PPMC has managed to support creation of the following, as of my last > status report to this list: > > 36 additional committers were successfully invited. > > 18 of those are also serving on the current PPMC. > > There might have been more additional committers on the PPMC, but the PPMC > has stopped inviting new committers to also be on the PPMC. I don't recall > any individual originally invited to be a committer to have later been > invited to become a PPMC member. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 15:08 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: What is a good Project Management Committee? > > On 07/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote: > [ ... ] > > The current PPMC, especially due to the bootstrapping phase that allowed > a large number of "initial committers" to enter the project without > demonstrating merit, can't be considered as having the trust of the > community. > > > My Proposal for the next step in the PMC selection process: > > I suggest that each of us provide up to 10 names for the PMC. no > > spreadsheet - no voting - no '-1s' for now. Just an affirmative list of > > the 10 people you think should be doing the work of the PMC. ... > > We can use this to produce the next pass at the proposed PMC > > roster, hopefully a PMC of around 20 members. > > This is a nice idea since it would guarantee that every PMC member is, > directly or indirectly, trusted by the community, while still > maintaining a manageable size for the PMC. > > Of course, if we choose this way, then most of the current PPMC members > won't be in the PMC; so it's important to guarantee that all volunteers > can have a say in determining the future of the project; for example, > the PMC would be committed to seeking consensus on ooo-dev rather than > enforcing choices by using its binding votes. And the "rotation" idea > from Rob makes sense too, if it can be implemented easily and with > little impact on the project's governance continuity. > > Regards, > Andrea. > >
