I'd first like to hear what the other mentors (James and Paul) think about the process/guidelines I've proposed.
Cliff On 10/19/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cliff, I am happy with this process, would the next step be to put names forward to be voted into the PPMC? Regards Carl. Cliff Schmidt wrote: > I'm finally getting back to the PPMC discussion (see below for a > reminder of where we left off)... > > Some of you may have read some of the debate about how to set up the > PPMC on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list a few weeks ago (if you're a > committer, you really should be subscribed to that list -- lots you > can learn from even just lurking). There are still a few opinions on > how to do things, but here is my proposal for this project: > > - Each mentor is a member of the PPMC. > > - All committers should have the opportunity to be members of the > PPMC, because I believe much of the purpose is to learn how PMCs work. > > - Any committer who would rather just limit their participation to > committing code without being involved in broader project issues > should not feel at all obligated to become part of the PPMC. To be on > a PMC is work on behalf of the Foundation -- not everyone wants to do > that, which is fine. A PPMC is not quite a PMC, but it's the same > idea. > > - Any committer who has not really been participating in the project > should not ask to me part of the PPMC. I'd suggest such folks spend > some time contributing to the project first. I would also discourage > people from asking to become part of the PPMC if they aren't expecting > to contribute to the discussions. I think this is especially > important when the idea is to learn how PMCs work, which is much > easier done when you are participating, rather than just lurking and > occasionally voting. > > - As far as process goes, I'd like to just follow Noel's suggestion > below and have the mentors vote in the PPMC members. As one of the > mentors, I've described how I will vote above. I'd be interested in > hearing whether the other mentors have concerns or a completely > different idea. Otherwise, I'd suggest that each committer consider > my comments above and then nominate yourself if you still feel you > want to/should be on the PPMC. > > Cliff > > > On 9/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Cliff Schmidt wrote: >> >> > here's the question: >> >> > should every committer automatically be a member of the PPMC? >> >> > Or should only a smaller set of committers (the people most >> > directly responsible for most of the existing work to date) >> > be on the PPMC until they vote to bring in others? >> >> > My personal opinion is that every committer should be on the PPMC so >> > that they better understand and have the opportunity to play a part >> > in that aspect of Apache. >> >> > However, I think the other point of view is quite reasonable (which I >> > believe is held by the chair of the Incubator, Noel Bergman). >> >> Actually, I really don't care. What I have said is that >> structurally, the >> initial PPMC consists of the mentors, and we bootstrap: they vote on >> whom >> they feel should belong on the PPMC. Whether that is a few people or >> everyone isn't my concern. My issue is purely procedural, leaving the >> policy in the hands of each set of Mentors. >> >> Now, technically, any vote effecting the ASF (new Commmitter or Release) >> counts only votes from the PMC, which is why the Incubator PMC needs >> to be >> informed of the vote, and why I keep pushing to have at least three (3) >> Mentors per project, so that each can more easily muster sufficient >> votes. >> >> I hope that my position is clearer now. >> >> --- Noel
