Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
I like the idea, but isn't the initial list primarily a question for the Secretary. Is the Secretary ok with 1000 additional ICLAs arriving en masse from an even larger project? If so, then I think the solution is much simpler; *Let the podling decide* if it is only Mentors, every user who has showed up at the project, or anything in between. If the Secretary has workload issues with ICLAs, then add a "max X" to the "let the podling decide". My guess is that the Secretary would say Ok to up to 100, possibly much higher (it spreads out over a few weeks). The less Incubator interferes the better, I think. Niclas On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Greg Steinwrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik > > > wrote: > > >... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being > > fully > > > aware of an increased load... > > > > And as such might be an interesting filter to make sure mentors are > > actually going to engage. > > > > RIght. That was a bit of my thought: if the mentors aren't engaged enough > to vote people in, then what are they doing there.(*) > > The basic concept can certainly be fiddled with. I see a couple ways: > increased mentor count for the bootstrap work, and/or maybe set the initial > list at (5) rather than (0). > > But back to (*), the mentors may only be there for *community* > development/education. As stated elsethread, such mentors may not be > properly equipped to evaluate merit for committership. That's a fair point > which I had not considered. ... So you could maybe imagine (1) Champion, > (3) Mentors, and (5) PPMC/committers to start any podling. > > Cheers, > -g > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
In all honesty: What would I as a mentor do, to get the project rolling? Obvious: Ask the mailing list for an "Initial committer list". So, what's the point? Jochen On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Greg Steinwrote: > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the > list. etc etc > > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old > communities. > > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? > > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and > the committership that results? > > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!" > BAM. It happens. > > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion + > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note: > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing > the project to the ASF) > > ??? > > Cheers, > -g -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretazwrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > >... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being > fully > > aware of an increased load... > > And as such might be an interesting filter to make sure mentors are > actually going to engage. > RIght. That was a bit of my thought: if the mentors aren't engaged enough to vote people in, then what are they doing there.(*) The basic concept can certainly be fiddled with. I see a couple ways: increased mentor count for the bootstrap work, and/or maybe set the initial list at (5) rather than (0). But back to (*), the mentors may only be there for *community* development/education. As stated elsethread, such mentors may not be properly equipped to evaluate merit for committership. That's a fair point which I had not considered. ... So you could maybe imagine (1) Champion, (3) Mentors, and (5) PPMC/committers to start any podling. Cheers, -g
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnikwrote: >... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being fully > aware of an increased load... And as such might be an interesting filter to make sure mentors are actually going to engage. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Geertjan Wielengawrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > >> For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans >> mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit >> them >> once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release. > > > In that regard, I'm not concerned about "the known knowns" and "the known > unknowns". Those are OK, we'll work through them. Just like you, I imagine, > I'm concerned about "the unknown unknowns": > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk > > On the other hand, I know we will cross those bridges when we get to them. Agreed. I was only using it as an example of how difficult it may be to fully estimate the commitment of time/effort for a mentor. Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being fully aware of an increased load. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans > mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit > them > once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release. In that regard, I'm not concerned about "the known knowns" and "the known unknowns". Those are OK, we'll work through them. Just like you, I imagine, I'm concerned about "the unknown unknowns": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk On the other hand, I know we will cross those bridges when we get to them. Gj On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnikwrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various > > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want > the > > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the > > list. etc etc > > > > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old > > communities. > > > > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? > > > > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the > Champion/Mentors > > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they > supposed > > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, > and > > the committership that results? > > This! This requires a super engaged cast of Mentors that are actually > willing to spend significant ammount of time down in the trenches. > Unfortunately mentor availability (for even simple things like a report > sign-off) has been a constant (although not as urgent these days) > issue (*) > > With the right group of mentors -- I'm super +1 on this! > > Thanks, > Roman. > > (*) For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans > mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit > them > once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Greg Steinwrote: > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the > list. etc etc > > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old > communities. > > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? > > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and > the committership that results? This! This requires a super engaged cast of Mentors that are actually willing to spend significant ammount of time down in the trenches. Unfortunately mentor availability (for even simple things like a report sign-off) has been a constant (although not as urgent these days) issue (*) With the right group of mentors -- I'm super +1 on this! Thanks, Roman. (*) For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit them once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
On 9/27/16, 8:38 AM, "gch...@gmail.com on behalf of Greg Chase"wrote: >In Apache Geode, we are trying to be liberal about bringing in new >committers. Anyone who shows an interest, and a series of well formatted >pull requests that follow are code guidelines are pretty quickly nominated >to become committers. > >This would make it very easy for emeritus contributors to become active >again, as well as new diverse community members. To me, it didn't seem right that if you had proven you could contribute good code before the code was moved to Apache but weren't on the initial list that you had to go through the "series of pull requests" gauntlet and then a 72 hour vote in order to get your commit bit. I think that's why we grind so much on the initial list: if you are not on it, lots of folks want you to "re-earn" your merit inside the ASF. The quick-add path might still take 72 hours for a vote, but at least you don't need to wait for a series of pull requests to be accepted, while some other person who did make the list can just start committing. Since there can be a culling of the list at graduation time, there is little risk to streamlining the commit bit for folks the community already knows from before. All that person has to is actually show up with something to commit and an ICLA, then there should be a vote where folks say "oh yeah, that person has been a productive contributor" and then that person gets an account and can commit their change. -Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
On Sep 27, 2016 10:44 AM, "Gregory Chase"wrote: > > Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying > homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the > technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to > those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three > years, and a liberal policy of granting new committer privileges as needed, > I think you should be ok. Does an emeritus committer need commit > privileges today? Only if they start committing again. > > And for those that want prestige - the prestige rests in being an active > evangelist of the project. One does not ever need to be a committer to > achieve prestige. > I agree with Gregory's POV on this. It is open and easy to do. His email could be the reference for how it should work IMO. I will add my POV The list is a tribute and a starting point for where the project "is" when it comes to Apache. If it is already OSS, then why new merit? It came with merit and that should continue; it isn't a vacuum. Otherwise it is exclusive of merit. If not previously OSS, then the donators best know who did what or who will initially carry on unless the intent is to no longer be heavily involved in the project. Obviously the project now has to operate for the ASF community, but a project needs those who know it one way or another. If new people want in, let them show a little effort for code, and in, as long as they can write good bug free code with tests. If they want status, without coding, then evangelism and users both are always needed. Stating the obvious, but we need coders, users, and evangelism to have a successful project and community, and that seems common in OSS and commercial alike. For OSS, we should be as open and inclusive as possible; it's voluntary after all. The bar for merit should match. Obviously if someone is doing anything malicious, ever, they are gone. I think the issue this thread is trying to address is a lack of protocol. A protocol can be simple and open as long as it states the rules and intent, and is the thing which everyone defers. Perhaps that needs clarified in the incubator process documents or better followed if there. There should not be varying opinions when it comes time to onboard a new project. If ever in need of change and review, then OK, processes can handle that. Lacking a protocol, or if folks don't want one, then it should be completely up to the mentors and sponsor to spell out what to do for their podling. Otherwise you have various opportunity for contention with no framework or fact, but subjective opinions of everyone involved even if informed by experience. But, even that is managed to a degree by some protocol in the mentor process. Thanks Wade
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
It's a radical proposal - but I think it would only work well where the champion/mentors are also from same community - e.g. the kind of "Already lots of Apache folks" projects that we previously suggested for the straight-to-PLP mode. There's also the danger of the project to seem hostile to non-Apache folks - and if the project has not already have a well-working contributor model; then activity will die out as it would have almost no committers. But choreographed well by the mentors - who would then have to be almost like a "project coach" - it could turn to a very open model as everyone on the list would feel they have a large say of project decisions. Some open source projects work well like this on GitHub today - with a very small set of people using commit rights and all activity done through pull requests. Perhaps the radical mini-PMC model could be good for those - working out who "is" and "isn't" a committer in ASF sense can be tricky for such projects - as you would have to go through all the discussions on all pull requests - code review and "helping" in design decisions is also part of being a committer! Just to note - one advantage of the "emeritus committers allowed" for a long-standing community (e.g. Netbeans - although I think we're happy with Netbeans proposal now!) is that those people will carry with them history and opinions - and could still work well with the PMC hat on even if they don't commit a single line of code - acting almost like an Advisory Board for the project. Another is that moving to Apache is not required to be a hard-reset - so just as Apache projects don't tend to vote out dormant committers (but they might voluntarily retire) - so if a long-running project moves to ASF it should not have to 'shed' committers. On 27 September 2016 at 16:43, Julian Hydewrote: > +0.5 I like this idea a lot (but there are governance problems to be solved). > > I have long been frustrated at folks who jump on the bandwagon and become > initial committers then play no further part in the project. > > Do inactive committers harm the project? No, of course they don’t. But it > isn’t fair to those who get in by pulling their weight. > > Now, those inactive committers should be removed when the project graduates, > right? No, in my experience they get to be PMC members. The project is too > polite to throw people out (especially what they perceive as “Apache VIPs”). > > And while I’m on that topic: I believe that mentors should not automatically > become PMC members when the project graduates. > > Julian > > >> On Sep 27, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >> >> The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a >> significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of >> initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various >> reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the >> "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the >> list. etc etc >> >> Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old >> communities. >> >> But. What if we just said "no such list" ? >> >> This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors >> who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed >> to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and >> the committership that results? >> >> This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not >> established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people >> simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort >> of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!" >> BAM. It happens. >> >> So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion + >> Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note: >> this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing >> the project to the ASF) >> >> ??? >> >> Cheers, >> -g > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
+0.5 I like this idea a lot (but there are governance problems to be solved). I have long been frustrated at folks who jump on the bandwagon and become initial committers then play no further part in the project. Do inactive committers harm the project? No, of course they don’t. But it isn’t fair to those who get in by pulling their weight. Now, those inactive committers should be removed when the project graduates, right? No, in my experience they get to be PMC members. The project is too polite to throw people out (especially what they perceive as “Apache VIPs”). And while I’m on that topic: I believe that mentors should not automatically become PMC members when the project graduates. Julian > On Sep 27, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Greg Steinwrote: > > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the > list. etc etc > > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old > communities. > > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? > > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and > the committership that results? > > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!" > BAM. It happens. > > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion + > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note: > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing > the project to the ASF) > > ??? > > Cheers, > -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
In Apache Geode, we are trying to be liberal about bringing in new committers. Anyone who shows an interest, and a series of well formatted pull requests that follow are code guidelines are pretty quickly nominated to become committers. This would make it very easy for emeritus contributors to become active again, as well as new diverse community members. On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Alex Haruiwrote: > It is an interesting idea. I thought that the initial committers list > provided the set of people who could define the merit to approve other new > committers. The mentors may not be familiar enough with the technology > and people to make the decision with the "Flavor" the community wants. > > The only sticking point I ran into in incubation was that folks felt the > need to be "fair" and require anybody not on the initial list to provide a > series of patches to show their commitment before voting them in. I'd > rather have a "quick-add" for folks who have been past contributors. Then > you could say the initial committers list should be 3 to 8 people, and > they could just add someone who shows up with something they want to > commit if that person is already in the commit history of the imported > code without having to make them submit a patch and wait 72 hours or more > for the vote. > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 9/27/16, 7:44 AM, "Gregory Chase" wrote: > > >Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying > >homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the > >technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to > >those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three > >years, and a liberal policy of granting new committer privileges as > >needed, > >I think you should be ok. Does an emeritus committer need commit > >privileges today? Only if they start committing again. > > > >And for those that want prestige - the prestige rests in being an active > >evangelist of the project. One does not ever need to be a committer to > >achieve prestige. > > > >On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny > >wrote: > > > >> Le 27/09/16 à 13:25, Greg Stein a écrit : > >> > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has > >>demonstrated a > >> > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > >> > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for > >>various > >> > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want > >> the > >> > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on > >>the > >> > list. etc etc > >> > > >> > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old > >> > communities. > >> > > >> > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? > >> > > >> > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the > >> Champion/Mentors > >> > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they > >> supposed > >> > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, > >> and > >> > the committership that results? > >> > > >> > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not > >> > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where > >>people > >> > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is > >> sort > >> > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna > >>join!" > >> > BAM. It happens. > >> > > >> > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the > >>Champion > >> + > >> > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. > >> (note: > >> > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with > >> bringing > >> > the project to the ASF) > >> > > >> > ??? > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > -g > >> > > >> Well, that's tempting... > >> > >> > >> OTOH there is no problem with having an initial list, even with people > >> who want to see their name on the web site for teh sake of their own ego > >> : it's easy to demote committer in the long run (moving them to an > >> emeritus status). > >> > >> > >> We have so many dormant committers in so many projects anyway ! > >> > >> > >> My take is the initial list is just a curtesy made to the involved > >> people, and a few more. Nothing less, nothing more. The PPMC list, OTOH, > >> is critical. > >> > >> > >> My 2 cts. > >> > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >Greg Chase > > > >Global Head, Big Data Communities > >http://www.pivotal.io/big-data > > > >Pivotal Software > >http://www.pivotal.io/ > > > >650-215-0477 > >@GregChase > >Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/ > > > - > To
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
It is an interesting idea. I thought that the initial committers list provided the set of people who could define the merit to approve other new committers. The mentors may not be familiar enough with the technology and people to make the decision with the "Flavor" the community wants. The only sticking point I ran into in incubation was that folks felt the need to be "fair" and require anybody not on the initial list to provide a series of patches to show their commitment before voting them in. I'd rather have a "quick-add" for folks who have been past contributors. Then you could say the initial committers list should be 3 to 8 people, and they could just add someone who shows up with something they want to commit if that person is already in the commit history of the imported code without having to make them submit a patch and wait 72 hours or more for the vote. My 2 cents, -Alex On 9/27/16, 7:44 AM, "Gregory Chase"wrote: >Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying >homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the >technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to >those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three >years, and a liberal policy of granting new committer privileges as >needed, >I think you should be ok. Does an emeritus committer need commit >privileges today? Only if they start committing again. > >And for those that want prestige - the prestige rests in being an active >evangelist of the project. One does not ever need to be a committer to >achieve prestige. > >On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny >wrote: > >> Le 27/09/16 à 13:25, Greg Stein a écrit : >> > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has >>demonstrated a >> > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of >> > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for >>various >> > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want >> the >> > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on >>the >> > list. etc etc >> > >> > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old >> > communities. >> > >> > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? >> > >> > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the >> Champion/Mentors >> > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they >> supposed >> > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, >> and >> > the committership that results? >> > >> > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not >> > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where >>people >> > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is >> sort >> > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna >>join!" >> > BAM. It happens. >> > >> > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the >>Champion >> + >> > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. >> (note: >> > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with >> bringing >> > the project to the ASF) >> > >> > ??? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > -g >> > >> Well, that's tempting... >> >> >> OTOH there is no problem with having an initial list, even with people >> who want to see their name on the web site for teh sake of their own ego >> : it's easy to demote committer in the long run (moving them to an >> emeritus status). >> >> >> We have so many dormant committers in so many projects anyway ! >> >> >> My take is the initial list is just a curtesy made to the involved >> people, and a few more. Nothing less, nothing more. The PPMC list, OTOH, >> is critical. >> >> >> My 2 cts. >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > >-- >Greg Chase > >Global Head, Big Data Communities >http://www.pivotal.io/big-data > >Pivotal Software >http://www.pivotal.io/ > >650-215-0477 >@GregChase >Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three years, and a liberal policy of granting new committer privileges as needed, I think you should be ok. Does an emeritus committer need commit privileges today? Only if they start committing again. And for those that want prestige - the prestige rests in being an active evangelist of the project. One does not ever need to be a committer to achieve prestige. On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Emmanuel Lécharnywrote: > Le 27/09/16 à 13:25, Greg Stein a écrit : > > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various > > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want > the > > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the > > list. etc etc > > > > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old > > communities. > > > > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? > > > > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the > Champion/Mentors > > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they > supposed > > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, > and > > the committership that results? > > > > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not > > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people > > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is > sort > > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!" > > BAM. It happens. > > > > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion > + > > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. > (note: > > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with > bringing > > the project to the ASF) > > > > ??? > > > > Cheers, > > -g > > > Well, that's tempting... > > > OTOH there is no problem with having an initial list, even with people > who want to see their name on the web site for teh sake of their own ego > : it's easy to demote committer in the long run (moving them to an > emeritus status). > > > We have so many dormant committers in so many projects anyway ! > > > My take is the initial list is just a curtesy made to the involved > people, and a few more. Nothing less, nothing more. The PPMC list, OTOH, > is critical. > > > My 2 cts. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Greg Chase Global Head, Big Data Communities http://www.pivotal.io/big-data Pivotal Software http://www.pivotal.io/ 650-215-0477 @GregChase Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Le 27/09/16 à 13:25, Greg Stein a écrit : > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the > list. etc etc > > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old > communities. > > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? > > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and > the committership that results? > > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!" > BAM. It happens. > > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion + > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note: > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing > the project to the ASF) > > ??? > > Cheers, > -g > Well, that's tempting... OTOH there is no problem with having an initial list, even with people who want to see their name on the web site for teh sake of their own ego : it's easy to demote committer in the long run (moving them to an emeritus status). We have so many dormant committers in so many projects anyway ! My take is the initial list is just a curtesy made to the involved people, and a few more. Nothing less, nothing more. The PPMC list, OTOH, is critical. My 2 cts. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Its not a bad idea at all, except you're now relying on already stretched too thin mentors to help bootstrap the podling. And since we've agreed that champion can roll off once the podling has been accepted (since they don't have to be a mentor) you're limiting that a bit further. John On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:01 AM Emilian Boldwrote: > Considering the effort that went into this and the fact that we had just > reached a point where we could move on past this list, I hope you start > using this new rule for the next project submitted. > > Pe marți, 27 septembrie 2016, Greg Stein a scris: > > > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various > > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want > the > > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the > > list. etc etc > > > > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old > > communities. > > > > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? > > > > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the > Champion/Mentors > > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they > supposed > > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, > and > > the committership that results? > > > > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not > > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people > > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is > sort > > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!" > > BAM. It happens. > > > > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion > + > > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. > (note: > > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with > bringing > > the project to the ASF) > > > > ??? > > > > Cheers, > > -g > > > > > -- > > --emi >
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Considering the effort that went into this and the fact that we had just reached a point where we could move on past this list, I hope you start using this new rule for the next project submitted. Pe marți, 27 septembrie 2016, Greg Steina scris: > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the > list. etc etc > > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old > communities. > > But. What if we just said "no such list" ? > > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and > the committership that results? > > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!" > BAM. It happens. > > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion + > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note: > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing > the project to the ASF) > > ??? > > Cheers, > -g > -- --emi
Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the list. etc etc Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old communities. But. What if we just said "no such list" ? This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and the committership that results? This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!" BAM. It happens. So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion + Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note: this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing the project to the ASF) ??? Cheers, -g