Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
I propose that the individual has the right to ask for PMC membership at a later date, without a PMC vote, since all the necessary steps to make them PMC have been done. In the invitation, we can include verbiage like "Your merit never expires and you can take this offer up any time you wish." Best, Nga On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:17 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > > I've not seen any other project do that, but it would work. > > The PMC chair would need to craft the wording of the emails: starting > a vote on the private list, announcing the result on the private list, > notice to the board, and inviting the contributor. They could do this > the first time that a vote occurs after graduation. > > Would the individual have the right to ask for PMC membership at a > later date, without a PMC vote? Per [1] the invitation is sent only > after the board has been notified. So if they decline, all of the > necessary steps to make them a PMC member will already have been done. > > Julian > > [1] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newpmc > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 8:58 AM Frank Greguska wrote: > > > > +1 to Nga's suggestion of default single tier including PMC membership with > > individual option to opt-out and receive committer-ship only. > > > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 4:18 PM Nga Chung wrote: > > > > > Thanks Riley, Julian. > > > > > > I wonder if it would make sense to go with the one tier, but > > > optionally allow the invitee to opt out of PMC membership if they only > > > want committership. This way we keep it simple, but also don't scare > > > away potential contributors if PMC membership appears like more > > > responsibility (even if it really isn't) than they are ready for. > > > > > > Best, > > > Nga > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:43 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm personally in favor of the two-tier solution as I think it would be > > > more suitable for > > > > growing our community. As Julian said it's a lower barrier to entry. > > > > > > > > On 2024/01/16 22:53:38 Julian Hyde wrote: > > > > > In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC): > > > > > * People perceive that there are two tiers to the project (and assume > > > that the PMC is doing something nefarious, when in fact it is usually, > > > quite correctly, doing very little). > > > > > * Simplicity. > > > > > > > > > > In favor of two tiers (some committers are not PMC members): > > > > > * The bar to committership is lowered. PMC members will give someone > > > the commit bit after just two or three code contributions, or some nice > > > work answering questions or giving conference talks. > > > > > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Nga Chung wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future > > > > > > committers / PMC members. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC > > > member? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Nga > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi Julian, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole > > > nomination > > > > > >> process. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote: > > > > > >>> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included > > > > > >>> in > > > > > >>> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an > > > > > >>> organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches > > > consensus, > > > > > >>> could be all the process we need. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's > > > important > > > > > >>> to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so > > > we > > > > > >>> can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they > > > *are* > > > > > >>> ready. It could be a simple email to private@: > > > > > >>> > > > > > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer > > > > > > > > > > I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They > > > have > > > > > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have > > > > > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. > > > > > > > > > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a > > > couple of months? > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the > > > > > >>> voting > > > > > >>> process is very straightforward. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about > > > whether > > > > > >>> it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Julian > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley
Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
I've not seen any other project do that, but it would work. The PMC chair would need to craft the wording of the emails: starting a vote on the private list, announcing the result on the private list, notice to the board, and inviting the contributor. They could do this the first time that a vote occurs after graduation. Would the individual have the right to ask for PMC membership at a later date, without a PMC vote? Per [1] the invitation is sent only after the board has been notified. So if they decline, all of the necessary steps to make them a PMC member will already have been done. Julian [1] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newpmc On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 8:58 AM Frank Greguska wrote: > > +1 to Nga's suggestion of default single tier including PMC membership with > individual option to opt-out and receive committer-ship only. > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 4:18 PM Nga Chung wrote: > > > Thanks Riley, Julian. > > > > I wonder if it would make sense to go with the one tier, but > > optionally allow the invitee to opt out of PMC membership if they only > > want committership. This way we keep it simple, but also don't scare > > away potential contributors if PMC membership appears like more > > responsibility (even if it really isn't) than they are ready for. > > > > Best, > > Nga > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:43 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > > > > > I'm personally in favor of the two-tier solution as I think it would be > > more suitable for > > > growing our community. As Julian said it's a lower barrier to entry. > > > > > > On 2024/01/16 22:53:38 Julian Hyde wrote: > > > > In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC): > > > > * People perceive that there are two tiers to the project (and assume > > that the PMC is doing something nefarious, when in fact it is usually, > > quite correctly, doing very little). > > > > * Simplicity. > > > > > > > > In favor of two tiers (some committers are not PMC members): > > > > * The bar to committership is lowered. PMC members will give someone > > the commit bit after just two or three code contributions, or some nice > > work answering questions or giving conference talks. > > > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Nga Chung wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future > > > > > committers / PMC members. > > > > > > > > > > What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC > > member? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Nga > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Julian, > > > > >> > > > > >> That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole > > nomination > > > > >> process. > > > > >> > > > > >> On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote: > > > > >>> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in > > > > >>> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an > > > > >>> organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches > > consensus, > > > > >>> could be all the process we need. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's > > important > > > > >>> to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so > > we > > > > >>> can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they > > *are* > > > > >>> ready. It could be a simple email to private@: > > > > >>> > > > > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer > > > > > > > > I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They > > have > > > > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have > > > > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. > > > > > > > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a > > couple of months? > > > > > > > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe > > > > >>> > > > > >>> In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting > > > > >>> process is very straightforward. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about > > whether > > > > >>> it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Julian > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't > > seem to have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC > > members (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an > > effort to establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined > > here [1] would be fine. > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative > > processes in mind. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Riley > > > > > > > > [1] > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
+1 to Nga's suggestion of default single tier including PMC membership with individual option to opt-out and receive committer-ship only. On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 4:18 PM Nga Chung wrote: > Thanks Riley, Julian. > > I wonder if it would make sense to go with the one tier, but > optionally allow the invitee to opt out of PMC membership if they only > want committership. This way we keep it simple, but also don't scare > away potential contributors if PMC membership appears like more > responsibility (even if it really isn't) than they are ready for. > > Best, > Nga > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:43 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > > > I'm personally in favor of the two-tier solution as I think it would be > more suitable for > > growing our community. As Julian said it's a lower barrier to entry. > > > > On 2024/01/16 22:53:38 Julian Hyde wrote: > > > In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC): > > > * People perceive that there are two tiers to the project (and assume > that the PMC is doing something nefarious, when in fact it is usually, > quite correctly, doing very little). > > > * Simplicity. > > > > > > In favor of two tiers (some committers are not PMC members): > > > * The bar to committership is lowered. PMC members will give someone > the commit bit after just two or three code contributions, or some nice > work answering questions or giving conference talks. > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Nga Chung wrote: > > > > > > > > I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future > > > > committers / PMC members. > > > > > > > > What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC > member? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Nga > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Julian, > > > >> > > > >> That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole > nomination > > > >> process. > > > >> > > > >> On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote: > > > >>> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in > > > >>> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an > > > >>> organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches > consensus, > > > >>> could be all the process we need. > > > >>> > > > >>> KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's > important > > > >>> to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so > we > > > >>> can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they > *are* > > > >>> ready. It could be a simple email to private@: > > > >>> > > > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer > > > > > > I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They > have > > > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have > > > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. > > > > > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a > couple of months? > > > > > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe > > > >>> > > > >>> In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting > > > >>> process is very straightforward. > > > >>> > > > >>> SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about > whether > > > >>> it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. > > > >>> > > > >>> Julian > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't > seem to have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC > members (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an > effort to establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined > here [1] would be fine. > > > > > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative > processes in mind. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Riley > > > > > > [1] > https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/ > > > >>> > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
Thanks Riley, Julian. I wonder if it would make sense to go with the one tier, but optionally allow the invitee to opt out of PMC membership if they only want committership. This way we keep it simple, but also don't scare away potential contributors if PMC membership appears like more responsibility (even if it really isn't) than they are ready for. Best, Nga On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:43 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > I'm personally in favor of the two-tier solution as I think it would be more > suitable for > growing our community. As Julian said it's a lower barrier to entry. > > On 2024/01/16 22:53:38 Julian Hyde wrote: > > In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC): > > * People perceive that there are two tiers to the project (and assume that > > the PMC is doing something nefarious, when in fact it is usually, quite > > correctly, doing very little). > > * Simplicity. > > > > In favor of two tiers (some committers are not PMC members): > > * The bar to committership is lowered. PMC members will give someone the > > commit bit after just two or three code contributions, or some nice work > > answering questions or giving conference talks. > > > > Julian > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Nga Chung wrote: > > > > > > I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future > > > committers / PMC members. > > > > > > What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Nga > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Julian, > > >> > > >> That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination > > >> process. > > >> > > >> On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote: > > >>> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in > > >>> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an > > >>> organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus, > > >>> could be all the process we need. > > >>> > > >>> KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important > > >>> to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we > > >>> can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are* > > >>> ready. It could be a simple email to private@: > > >>> > > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer > > > > I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They have > > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have > > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. > > > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple > > of months? > > > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe > > >>> > > >>> In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting > > >>> process is very straightforward. > > >>> > > >>> SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether > > >>> it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. > > >>> > > >>> Julian > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem > > to have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC > > members (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an > > effort to establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one > > outlined here [1] would be fine. > > > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in > > mind. > > > > Thanks, > > Riley > > > > [1] > > https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/ > > >>> > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
I'm personally in favor of the two-tier solution as I think it would be more suitable for growing our community. As Julian said it's a lower barrier to entry. On 2024/01/16 22:53:38 Julian Hyde wrote: > In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC): > * People perceive that there are two tiers to the project (and assume that > the PMC is doing something nefarious, when in fact it is usually, quite > correctly, doing very little). > * Simplicity. > > In favor of two tiers (some committers are not PMC members): > * The bar to committership is lowered. PMC members will give someone the > commit bit after just two or three code contributions, or some nice work > answering questions or giving conference talks. > > Julian > > > > On Jan 16, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Nga Chung wrote: > > > > I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future > > committers / PMC members. > > > > What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member? > > > > Thanks, > > Nga > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > >> > >> Hi Julian, > >> > >> That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination > >> process. > >> > >> On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote: > >>> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in > >>> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an > >>> organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus, > >>> could be all the process we need. > >>> > >>> KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important > >>> to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we > >>> can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are* > >>> ready. It could be a simple email to private@: > >>> > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer > > I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They have > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple of > months? > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe > >>> > >>> In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting > >>> process is very straightforward. > >>> > >>> SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether > >>> it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. > >>> > >>> Julian > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > Hi all, > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to > have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members > (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an effort to > establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined here > [1] would be fine. > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in > mind. > > Thanks, > Riley > > [1] https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/ > >>> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
In favor of one tier (everyone who is a committer is on the PMC): * People perceive that there are two tiers to the project (and assume that the PMC is doing something nefarious, when in fact it is usually, quite correctly, doing very little). * Simplicity. In favor of two tiers (some committers are not PMC members): * The bar to committership is lowered. PMC members will give someone the commit bit after just two or three code contributions, or some nice work answering questions or giving conference talks. Julian > On Jan 16, 2024, at 2:47 PM, Nga Chung wrote: > > I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future > committers / PMC members. > > What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member? > > Thanks, > Nga > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff wrote: >> >> Hi Julian, >> >> That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination >> process. >> >> On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote: >>> I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in >>> the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an >>> organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus, >>> could be all the process we need. >>> >>> KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important >>> to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we >>> can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are* >>> ready. It could be a simple email to private@: >>> [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They have made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple of months? [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe >>> >>> In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting >>> process is very straightforward. >>> >>> SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether >>> it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. >>> >>> Julian >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: Hi all, While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an effort to establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined here [1] would be fine. Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in mind. Thanks, Riley [1] https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/ >>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
I think it's a distinction between project contributor and project management. Probably not a big distinction at the moment because the SDAP community is still relatively small, but that can change. On 2024/01/16 22:47:12 Nga Chung wrote: > I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future > committers / PMC members. > > What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member? > > Thanks, > Nga > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > > > Hi Julian, > > > > That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination > > process. > > > > On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote: > > > I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in > > > the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an > > > organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus, > > > could be all the process we need. > > > > > > KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important > > > to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we > > > can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are* > > > ready. It could be a simple email to private@: > > > > > > > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer > > > > > > > > I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They have > > > > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have > > > > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. > > > > > > > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple > > > > of months? > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe > > > > > > In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting > > > process is very straightforward. > > > > > > SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether > > > it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem > > > > to have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC > > > > members (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an > > > > effort to establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one > > > > outlined here [1] would be fine. > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in > > > > mind. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Riley > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/ > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
I also like the DISCUSS thread example for talking about future committers / PMC members. What is the pro / con of having committers who are not also a PMC member? Thanks, Nga On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:13 AM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > Hi Julian, > > That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination > process. > > On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote: > > I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in > > the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an > > organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus, > > could be all the process we need. > > > > KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important > > to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we > > can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are* > > ready. It could be a simple email to private@: > > > > > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer > > > > > > I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They have > > > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have > > > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. > > > > > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple of > > > months? > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe > > > > In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting > > process is very straightforward. > > > > SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether > > it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. > > > > Julian > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to > > > have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members > > > (at least, none that I could find). I think we should make an effort to > > > establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined here > > > [1] would be fine. > > > > > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in > > > mind. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Riley > > > > > > [1] https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/ > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
Hi Julian, That makes a lot of sense as a better alternative to the whole nomination process. On 2024/01/11 23:56:13 Julian Hyde wrote: > I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in > the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an > organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus, > could be all the process we need. > > KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important > to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we > can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are* > ready. It could be a simple email to private@: > > > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer > > > > I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They have > > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have > > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. > > > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple of > > months? > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe > > In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting > process is very straightforward. > > SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether > it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. > > Julian > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to > > have a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members (at > > least, none that I could find). I think we should make an effort to > > establish and ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined here [1] > > would be fine. > > > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in mind. > > > > Thanks, > > Riley > > > > [1] https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/ >
Re: [DISCUSS] Formal process for adding committers / PMC members
I don't think the process needs to be very formal (e.g. included in the bylaws) or agreed before graduation. But it does need to be an organizational habit. This discussion thread, if it reaches consensus, could be all the process we need. KVRocks' template email starts 'I nominate...'. I think it's important to lower the bar to discussing new committers and PMC members, so we can talk about people who "might be ready". Because often they *are* ready. It could be a simple email to private@: > [DISCUSS] Alex Doe for committer > > I think Alex Doe has been doing some good work recently[1]. They have > made a couple of good PRs, one of which has been merged, and have > also been answering a lot of questions in the forums. > > Do you think Alex has earned enough merit, or should we wait a couple of > months? > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-sdap-nexus/commits?author=alexdoe In my experience, once there has been a good discussion, the voting process is very straightforward. SDAP should also set a policy (if it doesn't have one) about whether it is possible to be a committer without being a PMC member. Julian On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Riley Kuttruff wrote: > > Hi all, > > While working through the maturity model, I noticed SDAP doesn't seem to have > a documented, formal process for adding committers or PMC members (at least, > none that I could find). I think we should make an effort to establish and > ratify a process for this. I think the one outlined here [1] would be fine. > > Let me know what you think or if you have any alternative processes in mind. > > Thanks, > Riley > > [1] https://kvrocks.incubator.apache.org/community/vote-a-core-developer/
