Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg
That leaves me perplexed for several reasons... First, it's the first time I see a commiter rejected - without any reference to the quality and importance of his contribution, but some new member's standard we don't know about. Dan put the SSI system in a decent shape, that's similar with the contributions many others have done to become commiters. Second, if the 'members' and/or PMC has anything to say, I believe it should do it directly and in a public forum. Beeing talked about behind our back is not very comfortable. I nominated quite a few of the current tomcat commiters, and each of them made important contributions to tomcat. I used the same 'standards' that Bill used when proposing Dan. I believe we deserve some explanation from the 'members', I'm quite unhappy about this whole issue. If there are some new quantitative standards for becoming a commiter ( or a member ) we should know about. Costin On Fri, 24 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: Bill Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to propose Dan Sandberg (x at cs.stanford.edu) as a new Tomcat committer. He has already put in a great deal of work in re-factoring the SSIServlet in Tomcat 4.x, and seems to be willing to further contribute to working on this. -1 Sorry, but 7 messages posted to the -dev mailing list, and two patches don't make him reach my bar... I hate to be the PITA, as always, and I don't have anything against Dan or the patches he submitted to SSIServlet, but I believe that this group (as noted on the members meeting this Tuesday) is giving away committer privileges a little bit too easily... That's my $ 0.02 anyway... Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That leaves me perplexed for several reasons... First, it's the first time I see a commiter rejected - without any reference to the quality and importance of his contribution, but some new member's standard we don't know about. Dan put the SSI system in a decent shape, that's similar with the contributions many others have done to become commiters. Second, if the 'members' and/or PMC has anything to say, I believe it should do it directly and in a public forum. Beeing talked about behind our back is not very comfortable. I nominated quite a few of the current tomcat commiters, and each of them made important contributions to tomcat. I used the same 'standards' that Bill used when proposing Dan. I believe we deserve some explanation from the 'members', I'm quite unhappy about this whole issue. If there are some new quantitative standards for becoming a commiter ( or a member ) we should know about. The ASF members didn't impose any standard. Read my mail on _why_ I CCed the members list (I just explained it, the issue of bars and such was brought up, meaning that there's interest) and I'd like to do some cross-project pollination Dan made some excellent contribution to the SSIServlet, great, but on my archive, I can see that he posted 7 times to the list, and the first time exactly 24 days ago. He sent a patch, thank you, but in my book this is far for being a member of the developers community. I'm just uncomfortable with the bar set by this community to accept new committers in, and since nothing gets discussed unless someone does something outrageous like voting -1 on a new committer, well, there's no better troublemaker than me to do it :) Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 24 May 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Personally, I feel this discussion belongs solely on the tomcat list and is up to the committers of Tomcat to resolve. If the Tomcat community feels the bar should be raised, let them raise it. If they do not, then it shall not be raised. I don't feel it should be up to anyone else. I CC: general because the PMC was on the Cc: I think any discussion that is related with the PMC should be on general. ( except exceptions ). Yes, my mistake... I have to remember that instead of pmc@ we use general@ right now... It seems the request to raise the bar comes from the 'members', at least that's what I can conclude from Pier's mail - What I said was but I believe that this group (as noted on the members meeting this Tuesday) is giving away committer privileges a little bit too easily... I don't think that sound like this is a resolution passed by members or this is a guideline given at that meeting... To me it sounds like what happened: we were talking about what it does take for one person to become a committer and/or a member, expectations and bars... That's it... If I was misunderstood, well, sorry... and thus is of general interest. It is of general interest (IMO) because becoming a committer entitles you not only to a little peaceful heaven in your own little project, but entitles you (and, frankly, obliges you) to be a part of the Jakarta Community at large. You will be given (for example) access to the jakarta-commons CVS repo (if that didn't change lately), it entitles you to put your name on the website and to elect the PMC. And at large, it entitles you to have an @apache.org email address, to have access to our live servers, entitles you to be a part of the whole Apache family... I'm sorry, but I believe that any time a new committer is made, we _need_ to put some thought in what we're giving away, we're not just letting a guy commit to our CVS server... Anyway, that's what I think Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: It is of general interest (IMO) because becoming a committer entitles you not only to a little peaceful heaven in your own little project, but entitles you (and, frankly, obliges you) to be a part of the Jakarta Community at large. You will be given (for example) access to the jakarta-commons CVS repo (if that didn't change lately), it entitles you to put your name on the website and to elect the PMC. That should be jakarta-commons-sandbox not jakarta-commons. Similar rules apply for jakarta-commons as for all other Jakarta sub projects (consensus approval). regards, michael -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg
Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe we deserve some explanation from the 'members', I'm quite unhappy about this whole issue. If there are some new quantitative standards for becoming a commiter ( or a member ) we should know about. The ASF members didn't impose any standard. Read my mail on _why_ I CCed the members list (I just explained it, the issue of bars and such was brought up, meaning that there's interest) and I'd like to do some cross-project pollination While I think we should recognise that each project can set its own standards up to a degree, becoming a committer also entitles you to some jakarta-wide priveledges, which means there should be an (albeit unspoken) agreement between projects on what is the minimum. So I agree this is a valuable discussion. Exactly my point. We're not just letting a guy commit on our CVS. We're entitling him of privileges which are going to modify the balance or the project where he's committing (tomcat), the umbrella where his project is hosted (jakarta) and the foundation itself Dan made some excellent contribution to the SSIServlet, great, but on my archive, I can see that he posted 7 times to the list, and the first time exactly 24 days ago. I do not think this has to mean he is not a member of the developers community per se. No, absolutely not. If someone could tell me _something_more_ about Dan, apart from what I can see with my own eyes (7 emails, 1 patch and a request to be made a committer), well, I'll be happy to drop my vote... Just LET ME KNOW HIM! :) For example, Avalon is tightly coupled to Cocoon. A lot of stuff in Avalon has been brought over from cocoon. There could be a member who has been working on that code for a long time, using avalon for a long time, and now is becoming a maintainer of that code, while only ever having posted 3 messages to the avalon list before. I can see how this person could qualify for committer status. It's like when we incorporate new projects... Ceki was given the committer status as is, he didn't have to prove himself to be able/worthy of working on the code he wrote :) (I keep talking about However, the following quote alone He has already put in a great deal of work in re-factoring the SSIServlet in Tomcat 4.x, and seems to be willing to further contribute to working on this. doesn't imo provide enough of a case to grant this person (who I don't know anything about, btw) committer status. Neither I know anything about him... How can I +1 him if I don't know? I'm guessing that there are other unspoken qualities about him / assurances of his commitment that made some of the tomcat committers feel this person in fact should be granted committer status. I hope... Up until now (funny enough) the only evidence I gathered on him is that he's also a member of the tomcat-user mailing list, but unluckily, I haven't had time to go in the archives and read (yet). When all committers know about these other facts, everything is fine. When they do not (which I assume happened in this case), a -1 is in order, and the proposal can be ellaborated upon, after which the -1 can become a +1. Indeed... I don't want to close any door anywhere. If the guy who voted -1 still feels it is a valid vote after this ellaboration and following discussion, well, the candidate will probably understand the reasoning, and if he truely does deserve committer status, it will be granted to him in time, no? A -1 always have to come with a motive... My motive for my -1 is: I don't know the guy. And usually (at least in the old days), a -1 means, and now you make me change my mind... A -1 is a challenge, and god knows how many good things came out of -1s... :) So I think there is no reason to be very unhappy with the current process we have: no project is even remotely likely to be destroyed by committers not worth the status, and no potential committer with a thick enough skin to survive at jakarta in the long run is turned away. Nope, absolutely not... I just want to get to know who Dan is, and raise some awareness / discuss about how/why we should accept new committers in. Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg
What I said was but I believe that this group (as noted on the members meeting this Tuesday) is giving away committer privileges a little bit too easily... I don't think that sound like this is a resolution passed by members or this is a guideline given at that meeting... To me it sounds like what happened: we were talking about what it does take for one person to become a committer and/or a member, expectations and bars... That's it... If I was misunderstood, well, sorry... I understand, I still think thats something that if you are a voting committer of the Tomcat dev group you should -1 and argue your point there. I do not think the PMC should override the decision of the Tomcat group simply because you disagree with them. I feel that the Tomcat guys have been at this awhile and if you trust them to be on the server, well then I guess you trust them to decide who should be on the server. It is of general interest (IMO) because becoming a committer entitles you not only to a little peaceful heaven in your own little project, but entitles you (and, frankly, obliges you) to be a part of the Jakarta Community at large. You will be given (for example) access to the jakarta-commons CVS repo (if that didn't change lately), it entitles you to put your name on the website and to elect the PMC. I regard that as enfranchisement in the federation or confederation that is Jakarta. If the Tomcat community trusts your judgement enough to make you a voting committer in that project, and Jakarta trusts the Tomcat community enough to make it a member project, then you hence are enfranchised in the federal or confederal (sp?) union that is Jakarta. And at large, it entitles you to have an @apache.org email address, to have access to our live servers, entitles you to be a part of the whole Apache family... you're point being? I'm sorry, but I believe that any time a new committer is made, we _need_ to put some thought in what we're giving away, we're not just letting a guy commit to our CVS server... And I don't disagree with you. Its a states rights argument. You're questioning whether this community has the right to bring someone into the inner circle of the community. I say its their right. Yes it affects us all, but it is their right as a project to do so. Its like if you have a child, he'll likely be accepted as a citizen of the country that you are a citizen of, yet your countrymen probably are not consulted in the process, though it has an affect on them. I regard that as freedom. The POI project has been hard to give folks commit access and soft for others. Its been up to the judgement of the committers. Sometimes we've been easier on some because they fit well into the community and were working on an essential piece of the project, other times we've not been so easy (code quality concerns, importance of a feature to the community). We've done so with the consent of our Advisor and with occasional (all positive) input from other members of the greater Jakarta community, but with next to absolute freedom. We've executed this with care and always stressed the importance of the agreement and I think that is the trust instilled in us as a project. I'd hate to see that taken away from Tomcat. I've seen other project be more careless, its up to you to inform them of the magnitude of the situation, not argue that their rights should be restricted. I think you should argue your case on tomcat-dev and maybe see if others will follow. I don't think its appropriate to argue it here, or more accurately, I feel strongly that no action should be taken outside of the Tomcat community on this issue. =-Andy Anyway, that's what I think Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg
I'm sorry, but I believe that any time a new committer is made, we _need_ to put some thought in what we're giving away, we're not just letting a guy commit to our CVS server... +1 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: And at large, it entitles you to have an @apache.org email address, to have access to our live servers, entitles you to be a part of the whole Apache family... you're point being? I think that the point is that when you gain an @apache.org account, you're not just getting a throwaway free e-mail account, you're becoming a representative of Apache and the organization. I think that it's akin to your work e-mail address, as there's a certain amount (at least in my head) of responsibility attached to possessing it and using it properly. -Kurt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
