RE: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
Hi Folks, Sorry for the late reply but I would also like to be on the list. Regards, Sam. > -Original Message- > From: Alan Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 October 2006 22:44 > To: qpid-dev-apache > Subject: Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list) > > I'd also like to be on the list. > > On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 15:37 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote: > > May I also be on the list. > > > > Carl. > > > > Robert Greig wrote: > > > On 23/10/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process > > >> seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in > > >> participating in the PPMC speak up now. > > >> > > >> Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours > > >> (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? > > > > > > I would like to participate in the PPMC. > > > > > > Robert > >
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
I'd like to be included in the PPMC. John On 24/10/06, Kim van der Riet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would like to participate in the PPMC. Kim
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
I would like to participate in the PPMC. Kim
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
I'd also like to be on the PPMC.
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
Hi, Please include me also in PPMC. Thanks and regards, Bhupendra Bhardwaj On 10/24/06, Marnie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to be included in the PPMC please. Thanks, Marnie On 10/24/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cliff Schmidt wrote: > > Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process > > seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in > > participating in the PPMC speak up now. > > > > Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours > > (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? Then the three > > mentors can try to get a vote done soon after that. If we miss > > someone who is out on vacation or something like that, the PPMC can > > easily rectify that later. > > I would like to be a part of the PPMC. >
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
I'd like to be included in the PPMC please. Thanks, Marnie On 10/24/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Cliff Schmidt wrote: > Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process > seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in > participating in the PPMC speak up now. > > Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours > (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? Then the three > mentors can try to get a vote done soon after that. If we miss > someone who is out on vacation or something like that, the PPMC can > easily rectify that later. I would like to be a part of the PPMC.
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
Cliff Schmidt wrote: Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in participating in the PPMC speak up now. Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? Then the three mentors can try to get a vote done soon after that. If we miss someone who is out on vacation or something like that, the PPMC can easily rectify that later. I would like to be a part of the PPMC.
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
I'd also like to be on the PPMC. Thanks On 24/10/06, Rafael H. Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to participate in the PPMC as well. --Rafael Robert Greig wrote: > On 23/10/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process >> seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in >> participating in the PPMC speak up now. >> >> Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours >> (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? > > I would like to participate in the PPMC. > > Robert -- Martin Ritchie
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
I'd like to participate in the PPMC as well. --Rafael Robert Greig wrote: On 23/10/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in participating in the PPMC speak up now. Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? I would like to participate in the PPMC. Robert
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
On Oct 23, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Robert Greig wrote: On 23/10/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in participating in the PPMC speak up now. Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? I would like to participate in the PPMC. [Because of the email shutdown over the weekend. mail to this list seems messed up. I still haven't seen the messages I sent Saturday and today, for example, but I've seen responses to them. Similarly, I still haven't seen Cliff's message about the PPMC, but I've seen a few responses to it. So, I'm piggy-backing my response onto Robert's response.] I would also like to participate in the PPMC. --steve
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
I'd also like to be on the list. On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 15:37 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote: > May I also be on the list. > > Carl. > > Robert Greig wrote: > > On 23/10/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process > >> seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in > >> participating in the PPMC speak up now. > >> > >> Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours > >> (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? > > > > I would like to participate in the PPMC. > > > > Robert >
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
May I also be on the list. Carl. Robert Greig wrote: On 23/10/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in participating in the PPMC speak up now. Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? I would like to participate in the PPMC. Robert
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
On 23/10/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in participating in the PPMC speak up now. Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? I would like to participate in the PPMC. Robert
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
On 10/18/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Now that we've got responses from all three mentors that this process seems reasonable, I'd suggest that all committers interested in participating in the PPMC speak up now. Shall we say, speak up (reply to this thread) in the next 72 hours (Thursday, Noon PDT / 19:00 UDT) to be considered? Then the three mentors can try to get a vote done soon after that. If we miss someone who is out on vacation or something like that, the PPMC can easily rectify that later. Cliff
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
+1 from me too. Paul PS I don't disagree with that definition of active either. On 10/23/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1, sounds fine to me. On 10/20/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cliff > > I've read your note a couple of times. > > In summary it seems to say that: > 1. all *active* committers can join the PPMC > 2. they don't have to > 3. the mentors decide who is active > > Unless I missed something, I'm +1 on that. > > Paul > > On 10/19/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Paul Fremantle > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
On 10/20/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Cliff I've read your note a couple of times. In summary it seems to say that: 1. all *active* committers can join the PPMC 2. they don't have to 3. the mentors decide who is active Unless I missed something, I'm +1 on that. I think we're pretty much on the same page. We might have different opinions on what "active" means. I really believe that all committers of a podling should be on the PPMC, because I think the PPMC is mainly about learning through participation in project-level decisions. I was just saying that I'd rather not vote people in as PPMC members if they haven't, so far, shown any intention of participating in the project as a committer (e.g. no posts to the dev list/wiki/jira/svn). Cliff On 10/19/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
John, I've answered your questions below, but I don't think this is directly related to bootstrapping the PPMC. The PPMC will be populated from the set of initial committers. It seems that your questions below are mainly about how someone goes from being a contributor to becoming a committer. However, I've offered my thoughts on this below. Cliff On 10/20/06, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Recalling Cliff's initial briefing of the Qpid project members prior to entering the incubator, a "committer" is really a "contributer". H...let me clarify that: A contributor is anyone who contributes something to a project. A committer is someone who has been recognized by the PMC as having made a consistent set of high-quality contributions to the project and should therefore be trusted with increased access to some project resource (usually SVN). The "How It Works" page might help clear this up: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html. So: - Posting and managing JIRA's - Participating constructively in the mailing lists - Creating documentation - Checking in code These are all valuable contributions worthy of a "committer". Checking the SVN log is not the only place to go looking for activity. I agree that checking in code is not the only way to contribute to a project. However, being a committer means having write access to some resource that would not otherwise be available. Committership usually happens when the PMC feels that the person could contribute more productively from having access to something they don't as a non-committer. So, I don't think it would make sense for a PMC to say, "let's make Fred a committer because he has been participating constructively on the mailing list and would like to do more of that". OTOH, a release manager may not write a lot of code but could do the job more efficiently with write access to the source tree and the ability to access certain ASF servers. If everyone codes, and just codes, things fall apart just as badly as where everyone just talks :-) Is this measure of activity acceptable? I agree that most project could be improved with some non-code contributions. Also, I would ideally have liked to see more input to the project by some of the mentors; but perhaps I'm missing something? Happy to be enlightened (mentored, even!) Unfortunately, most mentors have to be pinged a few times to get their attention; otherwise, they try to just look over the project periodically to see how it's going and speak up if they see a problem. I'm not sure how much time Paul and James can commit to this, but I will always be able to make time for this project. Unfortunately, much of the time so far as been on boring logistics issues like account creations, wikis, jira, etc. Hopefully, now we get to talk about the good stuff. Cliff On 20/10/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cliff > > I've read your note a couple of times. > > In summary it seems to say that: > 1. all *active* committers can join the PPMC > 2. they don't have to > 3. the mentors decide who is active > > Unless I missed something, I'm +1 on that. > > Paul > > On 10/19/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 woul
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
+1, sounds fine to me. On 10/20/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Cliff I've read your note a couple of times. In summary it seems to say that: 1. all *active* committers can join the PPMC 2. they don't have to 3. the mentors decide who is active Unless I missed something, I'm +1 on that. Paul On 10/19/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
John Firstly, I apologize for any lack of mentorship! I'll make more effort. And, yes I agree that contribution is not just code. Some of the most useful contributors in Apache are people to write documentation! They are also some of the rarest :-) Paul On 10/20/06, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Recalling Cliff's initial briefing of the Qpid project members prior to entering the incubator, a "committer" is really a "contributer". So: - Posting and managing JIRA's - Participating constructively in the mailing lists - Creating documentation - Checking in code These are all valuable contributions worthy of a "committer". Checking the SVN log is not the only place to go looking for activity. If everyone codes, and just codes, things fall apart just as badly as where everyone just talks :-) Is this measure of activity acceptable? Also, I would ideally have liked to see more input to the project by some of the mentors; but perhaps I'm missing something? Happy to be enlightened (mentored, even!) John On 20/10/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cliff > > I've read your note a couple of times. > > In summary it seems to say that: > 1. all *active* committers can join the PPMC > 2. they don't have to > 3. the mentors decide who is active > > Unless I missed something, I'm +1 on that. > > Paul > > On 10/19/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
Recalling Cliff's initial briefing of the Qpid project members prior to entering the incubator, a "committer" is really a "contributer". So: - Posting and managing JIRA's - Participating constructively in the mailing lists - Creating documentation - Checking in code These are all valuable contributions worthy of a "committer". Checking the SVN log is not the only place to go looking for activity. If everyone codes, and just codes, things fall apart just as badly as where everyone just talks :-) Is this measure of activity acceptable? Also, I would ideally have liked to see more input to the project by some of the mentors; but perhaps I'm missing something? Happy to be enlightened (mentored, even!) John On 20/10/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Cliff I've read your note a couple of times. In summary it seems to say that: 1. all *active* committers can join the PPMC 2. they don't have to 3. the mentors decide who is active Unless I missed something, I'm +1 on that. Paul On 10/19/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 lea
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
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
Re: Establishing a PPMC (was Re: Private list)
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
