All what-ifs. The decisions, as I said, should be made on the typical 6-12 month period of contribution. Everything is encapsulated there: the code done, how it was introduced, how it was delivered and if there were no issues then that can be the basis to make a decision. Everything outside the bounds of that is speculation.
On Jul 25, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > The Apache Foundation values Community over Code. > > Merit is thus not just a question about writing "the best code" but helping > and fostering the community around that code. > > This in deciding committers we need people who are "good enough" *both* > socially and technically. This can be a mix, eg one very good technical > person who is poor socially can be counterweighted by a good social person > who is (comparatively poor technically... But sufficiently socially aware > of their technical ability) > > If you don't like "community over code", then Apache may not be the place > for you... And that's ok. > > But as you step up in engagement with an Apache community, you should be at > least ok with the ASF values. > > How that impacts what it means to be on the PMC is therefore relevant. > > Should it be a strong step and we only take people into the PMC that > repeatedly demonstrate that they value the community over code (large code > dumps from long running private forks are not community friendly to a lot > of people's mind... Repeatedly causing conflict within the community is > another)? Or should we say the PMC is just to perform the legal duty and > leave the "religion" to members of the ASF? > > That is what needs to be answered > > On Thursday, 25 July 2013, Sankaran, Nambi wrote: > >> +1 >> >> The candidates should be people who contribute in terms of code/patch. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:56 AM >> To: Maven Users List >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should the Maven PMC be an example of how we want >> the Maven Community to behave (was Re: svn commit: r1506778 - >> /maven/site/trunk/content/markdown/project-roles.md) >> >> >> On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Stephen Connolly < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> As part of trying to kick this project back to life, we need to grow >>> both committers and the PMC. >>> >> >> You don't need either. You need people who do work. People who do work may >> happen to be a committer or PMC member but you have it backward. You need a >> lot of people who do a lot of work to drive a project forward. >> >>> One of the issues with growing either is determining if potential >>> candidates are the "right sort of person". >>> >> >> People who do work. I'm not sure how you decide the "right sort of person" >> if it's not based in the actual contributions to the project. Not what >> might be contributed, but what has actually been contributed. >> >>> There is a disagreement in the PMC as to whether "dedication to the >>> Maven project community" is relevant to such discussions. >>> >> >> Are not people who do work dedicated? Are not people who have done the >> most work the most dedicated? To me doing work is the whole basis of a >> meritocracy, doing work is table stakes for being on the PMC and is first >> condition at least in a meritocracy. >> >>> For growing committers, this is usually a small issue, if at all. >>> >>> For growing the PMC it can be quite contentious, especially when >>> considering "controversial" candidates. >>> >> >> Discussions should be about the work that is being done on the project. >> Everything outside of that is not within the purview of the discussion. How >> can it be? It's generally looking at the contributions over the last 6 >> months or a year and making a decision based on the merit of that work. >> >>> In an effort to try and harmonise the PMC, I - as one of the fence >>> sitters >>> - started this debate... In essence calling on that group that trumps >>> the PMC... ie the community. >>> >>> John posted the proposed - remember we are CTR not RTC - addition to >>> the page I started, at least as a stalking horse (or perhaps it is his >>> opinion... I will leave it up to him to state his position) >>> >>> On Thursday, 25 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote: >>> >>>> So what's outlined in those paragraphs have counter examples at the >>>> ASF. I do not believe it is a bad thing to have alternative >>>> distributions or forks, and it doesn't matter where they are. What >>>> you are saying is that committers are obliged to share all their work >>>> with other committers. Which is more coercion than a matter of >>>> choice. For all work that happens within the bounds of the ASF >>>> absolutely. Core changes should not be made projects without >>>> discussion. That's a good rule and helps with stability. For work >>>> that happens outside the bounds of the ASF an author is obliged to do >>>> nothing of the sort and the assert as much is absurd quite honestly. >> What right does the ASF have over work that is not done at Apache? >>>> >>>> In fact there are people on the ASF Board who belong to companies >>>> that have long standing forks and/or alternative distributions of ASF >> projects. >>>> Look at Hadoop: there are two companies that have people on PMCs who >>>> maintain alternative distributions with code that does not exist in >>>> standard distributions. Both Cloudera and HortonWorks maintain >>>> versions of Hadoop that are not compatible and/or have different code >>>> than the version from Apache. There is selective patching and >>>> additions made to try and provide a better distribution of Hadoop. I >> don't think this is a bad thing. >>>> This also happens with Cassandra and the people who work at Datastax >>>> where an alternative distribution is made. I don't know as much about >>>> what is in those distributions insofar as code that doesn't exist in >>>> the standard Apache distribution. Again, I don't think this is a bad >>>> thing. I'm sure they would all tell you that they are trying to make >>>> a better version of said project, they work with customers, work at a >>>> different pace and hope to >> in--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<javascript:;> >> >> > > -- > Sent from my phone Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt
