Scott, I can image that you would feel that 'accept' is better than 'follow' with respect to advice. But it still sounds that you want a contributor to comply to your advice. We are dealing with people here who can make sound judgement calls whether or not to accept and act accordingly. The participants within this community are not sheep.
You are making more of this than it should be. We have enough mitigating procedures in place for the occasional committer that doesn't comply to responsibilities outlined in the wiki page. If you have trust issues you should propose changes to the wiki document. That way all participants in this project can increase their insights and express their viewpoint about how and when contributors should be considered and accepted or rejected by the PMC. Remember, this is a project for everybody participating. That you have trust issues and therefor reject any committer who doesn't comply to your advice, shouldn't lead to an increasing number of issues not getting resolved. That way you are stifling the growth of our project. My advice to you is to relax your viewpoint on this and any contributor showing commitment to the project. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Scott Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps "accept" is a better word than "follow", no one has ever > questioned it in such detail. > > If there's disagreement about advice given then there only needs to be a > willingness to discuss the matter. Obviously there are votes if things get > out of hand but it's rare for things to go that far. If committers are > unwilling to approach a disagreement with an open mind then it makes life > difficult for everyone. > > Regards > Scott > > On 18/10/2014, at 1:04 am, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Scott, > > > > Am I correct in understanding that any contributor with ambitions to be a > > committer should interpret your 'willing to follow advice' as > 'willingness > > to take good advice into consideration when acting within the community > or > > dealing with issues, but don't follow bad advice blindly'? Your 'willing > to > > follow' sounds a lot like 'must follow'. I trust that wasn't your > > intention... > > > > Or am I misinterpreting this? > > > > Regards, > > > > Pierre Smits > > > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > > Based Manufacturing, Professional > > Services and Retail & Trade > > http://www.orrtiz.com > > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Scott Gray <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> From my perspective the confluence document seems to outline everything > >> pretty well. > >> > >> I think the 'trust' aspect would simply be that a voting PMC member is > >> able to trust that a potential committer would fulfill the the outlined > >> roles and responsibilities. The 'attitude' would simply be that the > >> potential committer is willing to follow advice and work well with > others. > >> Neither of these things are so strange that they'd need to be further > >> documented IMO. > >> > >> I can't speak for Jacopo or anyone else, that's just my interpretation. > >> > >> Regards > >> Scott > >> > >> On 17/10/2014, at 11:49 pm, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> So, you - as any PMC member - can also elaborate on the consensus with > >>> respect to the attitude and trustability requirements regarding > potential > >>> committers (above and beyond the responsibilities, if these exist). > >>> > >>> Or - as it may be possible that I have misinterpreted the posting by > >> Jacopo > >>> - is it just about potential committers having the right mindset > towards > >>> the execution of tasks as described in the roles and responsibilities > >>> document? Meaning that they can apply due diligence before committing? > >> And > >>> that they can make their own interests subordinate to those of the > >>> community? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Pierre Smits > >>> > >>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- > >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional > >>> Services and Retail & Trade > >>> http://www.orrtiz.com > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Scott Gray < > [email protected] > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Pierre, > >>>> > >>>> Yes, in his opinion that is what we do. It's probably a correct > opinion > >>>> too (in my opinion). But at the end of the day my point stands, PMC > >>>> members are individuals and each have different opinions about what > >> makes a > >>>> good committer. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not trying to be combative, if you disagree I'm happy to discuss > it. > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> Scott > >>>> > >>>> On 17/10/2014, at 11:19 pm, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Scott, > >>>>> > >>>>> You are correct. Yet, you forgot to mention that Jacopo used 'we' in > >>>> direct > >>>>> relation to the words attitude and trust. So, he is not talking about > >>>> just > >>>>> his own feelings but about the collective perception. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Pierre Smits > >>>>> > >>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > >>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- > >>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional > >>>>> Services and Retail & Trade > >>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Scott Gray < > >> [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Pierre, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion". That's an > >>>>>> extremely important point. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote > >> however > >>>>>> they feel would best serve the project. Any of us could provide our > >> own > >>>>>> personal guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> Scott > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jacopo, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in > releases > >>>> (see > >>>>>>> here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you > >>>> addressed > >>>>>>> aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to > >>>> inviting > >>>>>>> committers. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities > >>>>>>> ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude > and > >>>>>> trust > >>>>>>> are not not mentioned. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations > >> are > >>>>>>> regarding this right attitude and trust? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Pierre Smits > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > >>>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- > >>>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional > >>>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade > >>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato < > >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating > >>>>>>>> committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite > >>>>>> committers > >>>>>>>> when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the > >>>> right > >>>>>>>> attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and > demonstrate > >>>>>> enough > >>>>>>>> technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is > limited > >>>> to > >>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> subset of the OFBiz codebase they will get full access to the > repos > >>>> but > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> course they will limit their field of action to the area they > know, > >>>>>> without > >>>>>>>> requiring us to enforce commit rights limitations. As I said this > >> can > >>>>>> only > >>>>>>>> work if we trust them 100% as persons at first. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Jacopo > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
