I also find it quite odd an almost offensive to the open source community in general to state that a PMC member shall not be allowed to fork too much around. It's not a marriage, you know ;-).
I tend to agree with Jason: the PMC needs people who *do* stuff, meaning: * bring the project foward (with discussions like this one, or the JDK5/JDK6 threads). * keep a close eye on commits. * keep a very close eye on release votes. * continue to assure that we don't do anything that the ASFdoesn't allow, while making sure that we don't burden ourselfs with bulky processes to achieve that. It's a tough responsibility and it requires some dedication to the project. I explicitly do not think that it's the responsibility of the PMC to make sure that the maven project will never die out. That I'd find a bit unnatural and against any best-of-breed principles, which worked out quite well for open source software (and especially their users) in the past. Cheers, Andreas 2013/7/25 Sankaran, Nambi <[email protected]> > +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 integrate their work back in later if > possible. > >> > >> If this is a sideways attempt to address what I'm doing in Tesla, > >> which is what it appears like to me, then just start a discussion on > the dev list. > >> Happy to discuss it. > > > > > > It would be great if you could have that discussion on the dev list > > any way... But what prompted me to prod John to commit the text and me > > to start this discussion is a long running debate on the PMC private > > list as to what kind of person should be on the PMC... By long running > > I mean that some aspects of this are more than a year old and have > > been in mails since before you started to re-engage with the project. > > > > That does not mean that the stuff you are doing at Tesla is not > > relevant or a trigger for trying to sort out the disconnect between > > two camps in the PMC... More that it is being considered in a common > > context of an ongoing debate, and in an effort to resolve the debate > > we are asking those we are supposed to serve for their input. > > > > HTH > > > > > >> > >> But if someone posits that all work related to an Apache project has > >> to be done at Apache, then I will say that is a ridiculous > >> supposition and you can find ten counter examples in ten minutes if you > went looking. > >> > >> On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Stephen Connolly < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On Thursday, 25 July 2013, Curtis Rueden wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Stephen and everyone, > >>>> > >>>> I largely agree with Nigel, and would add that in general, > >>>> bureaucratic rules prohibiting various (often technically and/or > >>>> socially sound) > >> actions > >>>> such as forking are a great way to ensure that skilled people > >>>> distance themselves from the organization (i.e., quit the PMC, > >>>> decline to join, etc.). You will be left with only bureaucrats who > >>>> can tolerate those restrictions, and worse, create even more of them. > >>>> > >>>> Of course, there should be good, publicly stated reasons for > >> long-running > >>>> forks. > >>> > >>> > >>> I will not speak for the author of the proposed revision, but my > >>> understanding of the intent is that these forks should be hosted on > >>> ASF hardware in public and as part of our community. > >>> > >>> It's not about no forking, but allowing the committers to have an > >>> ongoing view of things in the community. > >>> > >>> Any committer is free to edit the wording if they want right now... > >>> The > >> doc > >>> is a work in progress proposal > >>> > >>> > >>>> Merging to mainline is ideal but not always practical in the real > >>>> world. Developers need the freedom to experiment, even (perhaps > >> especially) > >>>> when in active community positions such as the PMC. > >>>> > >>>> That said, it is certainly the responsibility of those on the PMC > >>>> to > >> act as > >>>> community leaders via best practices. But enforcing that in > >>>> writing, at least as the current proposal does, seems very > counterproductive to me. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Curtis > >>>> On Jul 25, 2013 8:59 AM, "Nigel Magnay" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> That whole section I find pretty bizarre. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Apache is about (open-source) software. > >>>>> - Writing code is *good*. > >>>>> - Forks are *good* > >>>>> * > >>>>> * > >>>>> I'm put in mind of Linus' talk about why git distribution is so > >>>> important - > >>>>> that 'if you don't think I'm doing a good job, then you can just > >>>>> take > >>>> your > >>>>> code from another maintainer. *That's* what keeps a project honest > >>>>> and responsive to the users. > >>>>> > >>>>> I would have thought that the kinds of people who are interested > >>>>> in > >>>> writing > >>>>> maven-esque code would be some of the people you'd want on a PMC. > >>>>> If > >> they > >>>>> have a "long running fork" or a "reimplementation", surely they > >>>>> would > >> be > >>>>> lobbying for its integration? Merging is also good. If, despite > >>>>> this, they're choosing to do this elsewhere, and/or are having > >>>>> trouble > >> merging > >>>>> projects in, isn't that a pretty sad indictment for the health of > >>>>> the project? Isn't it a bit like saying "boo-hoo, those that are > >>>>> doing the actual work might go work in their own sandpit if we > >>>>> won't play ball, > >>>> let's > >>>>> ex-communicate them" ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Unless (as some have suspected for a while) Apache isn't about > >>>>> software anymore, it's about the continued existence of Apache (cfex: > >>>> OpenOffice).- > >>>>> a political edifice where projects go to die. That's certainly > >>>>> what > >> those > >>>>> added paragraphs say to me. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Stephen Connolly < > >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> There are two schools of thought amongst the current members of > >>>>>> this projects PMC. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Without wanting to deliberately tip my hand and reveal where my > >> opinion > >>>>> is, > >>>>>> we would like to solicit the opinions if the community that we > serve. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please give us your thoughts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The topic is essentially: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you want the members of the Maven PMC to be social leaders of > >>>>>> the > >>>>> Maven > >>>>>> community, who's actions demonstrate the best community beThanks, > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >> Jason van Zyl > >> Founder, Apache Maven > >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > >> --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises > >> in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral > >> justification for selfishness. > >> > >> -- John Kenneth Galbraith > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
