You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> on 2008/02/02 17:22:20 UTC
[DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Hi,
Following up (finally) on the community diversity discussion of last
December [1], I propose to re-elect podling committers before a
project graduates.
If we agree, I'll start a vote to add the following text after the
"Graduation Process" title at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#process :
*** Podling committers graduation ***
Once a podling is ready to graduate, its committers are re-elected,
according to the ASF's usual meritocracy rules.
The goal is to ensure that all Apache committers have gone through the
"meritocracy filter", which does not apply to people included in a
podling's initial committers list, for obvious reasons.
The suggested process is to have podling committers (and mentors if
they want) self-nominate themselves, indicating why they believe they
should be included in the list of graduated committers. People who
were on the initial list of podling committers, but did not actively
contribute, are expected to step down at this point.
The PPMC votes to accept the nominations, subject to the usual voting
rules for committers.
The podling's mentors lead this process, usually with no involement of the IPMC.
The results of the committers graduation votes are include in the
podling's graduation request.
***
I think this reflects our discussions at [1], but let me know if I
forgot something!
-Bertrand
[1] http://markmail.org/message/xy57ghwdezq4w4pi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com>.
> > ...Craig has a good point - maybe that 'pruning' process, to the
> > extent it's appropriate, should happen before they start the actual
> > graduation process?
> >
> > The question is how, and it's something no established project has
> > ever figured out, nevermind our podlings :)...
>
> Hence the suggestion that some of us discussed in December:
> re-electing podling committers is a no-brainer for active people, and
> gives others a chance to step out.
Not trying to take a side, what we did in Felix was to just ask
everybody on our list if he would like to step out. Not all people
which I would have expected to do so did at this point but some did.
The reason I point this out is that quite a few of the more inactive
people that stayed on board are by now very active while others are
not as active anymore as they used to be during incubation...
regards,
Karl
> -Bertrand
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Bill,
On Feb 13, 2008, at 4:09 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> In projects where commit is handed out with ease, and that commit is
> never used, at some point it should be reviewed (and this should
> happen
> BEFORE graduation, as a precondition of graduation, not as a trigger
> upon graduation).
>
Thanks for the clarification. That's exactly what I've been saying all
along.
Craig
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2008 1:09 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
>
>> ... In projects where commit is handed out with ease, and that
>> commit is
>> never used, at some point it should be reviewed (and this should
>> happen
>> BEFORE graduation, as a precondition of graduation, not as a trigger
>> upon graduation)....
>
> Agree with this, and this is similar to what I was initially
> suggesting.
>
> Several of us in this thread think that this review of commit rights
> should not be a re-election as initially suggested, but rather a
> process that the podling mentors can run as they see fit: maybe not at
> all if all committers are obviously active, by election if desired, or
> in any suitable way.
>
> Do people agree on leaving this up to podling mentors, and requiring
> that they report on this commit rights review in the podling's
> graduation request?
I definitely think it's a mentor-driven process that deserves a
sentence in the graduation request, right along side "meritocracy" and
"independent committers".
Craig
>
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Feb 13, 2008 1:09 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>... In projects where commit is handed out with ease, and that commit is
> never used, at some point it should be reviewed (and this should happen
> BEFORE graduation, as a precondition of graduation, not as a trigger
> upon graduation)....
Agree with this, and this is similar to what I was initially suggesting.
Several of us in this thread think that this review of commit rights
should not be a re-election as initially suggested, but rather a
process that the podling mentors can run as they see fit: maybe not at
all if all committers are obviously active, by election if desired, or
in any suitable way.
Do people agree on leaving this up to podling mentors, and requiring
that they report on this commit rights review in the podling's
graduation request?
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2008 02:35, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted this
>> privilege based on their merit, not just by updating a wiki page
>> saying that they're interested.
>
> Actually, if/where this is the case, it is not proper. I want to only see past
> contributors on initial committer lists.
Therefore incubator policy should be to accept no proposals that do not
consist of existing code written by three or more authors.
This whole thread has fallen off-track.
My point was that different podlings, different TLPs have different
considerations for how commit access is handed out (and reaped at
some point in the future based on actual contribution). My further
point is that we are fitting square pegs in round holes.
In projects where commit is handed out with ease, and that commit is
never used, at some point it should be reviewed (and this should happen
BEFORE graduation, as a precondition of graduation, not as a trigger
upon graduation).
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 02:35, Craig L Russell wrote:
> The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted this
> privilege based on their merit, not just by updating a wiki page
> saying that they're interested.
Actually, if/where this is the case, it is not proper. I want to only see past
contributors on initial committer lists.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:01 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:59 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> This is almost the exact same issue with a podling; if a user
>>> never actually
>>> participates, as the project graduates should they remain a
>>> committer?
>> The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted this
>> privilege based on their merit, not just by updating a wiki page
>> saying that they're interested.
>
> Keep in mind that isn't universally true, some TLPs are more liberal
> or
> flexible than others. E.g. APR handed out commit bits to other
> project
> committers, while in httpd it takes 6 mos or so of consistent
> contribution.
>
>
>> We already have the concept of emeritus members who, having
>> contributed in the past, are no longer active. I'd like to leave it
>> up to each PMC to decide whether or when to change the status of
>> previous committers/PMC members.
>
> +1 - and I feel it's the same w/ each podling. It is truly their call
> how to handle this based on how commit privs were granted in the
> first place.
And I feel that we have a duty to podlings to teach them the Apache
Way, which grants commit privileges based on merit.
I'm having difficulty understanding your position. Podlings can grant
commit privileges to anyone with no notion of merit? And no oversight
from the incubator? It's their call?
Craig
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:59 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> This is almost the exact same issue with a podling; if a user never actually
>> participates, as the project graduates should they remain a committer?
>
> The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted this
> privilege based on their merit, not just by updating a wiki page saying
> that they're interested.
Keep in mind that isn't universally true, some TLPs are more liberal or
flexible than others. E.g. APR handed out commit bits to other project
committers, while in httpd it takes 6 mos or so of consistent contribution.
> We already have the concept of emeritus members who, having contributed
> in the past, are no longer active. I'd like to leave it up to each PMC
> to decide whether or when to change the status of previous
> committers/PMC members.
+1 - and I feel it's the same w/ each podling. It is truly their call
how to handle this based on how commit privs were granted in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:59 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Monday 04 February 2008 04:11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but
>>> equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned
>>> inactive committers from the graudation list.
>> Personally, I don't see a difference between inactive committers in
>> a podling than for a TLP.
I think there is a big difference between pruning committers from a
podling and doing so for a TLP.
A podling is created with anyone who can sign an ICLA, accepted as a
committer. The understanding that everyone who signs up will actually
show up. In practice, this is not true, not necessarily due to any bad
faith on anyone's part. So at graduation, the incubator PMC has to
decide whether there is a community with independent actors who are
"committed" to making the project a continuing effort. If there are
committers who are not actually contributing, it makes the PMC's job a
lot harder. It also diminishes the concept of meritocracy when folks
who never participated are granted privileges that they didn't earn.
On the other hand, a duly constituted PMC doesn't allow non-
participants to become committers or PMC members. Everyone must be
voted in as committer or PMC member.
>> Should existing projects "prune" their committer lists on an annual
>> basis? I think there is no need.
>
> The only argument for doing so is subversion access by 'abandoned'
> accounts.
> With the oversight of commit logs, in practice this is not an issue,
> so the
> one aspect that root might be concerned with is a user who does not
> use
> their people.apache.org shell login for a substantial period of
> time. And
> those cases would be better handled by infrastructure with an ASF-wide
> policy to achieve their goals of security for the foundation machines.
>
> So I don't see a difference with 'pruning' TLP committers. The only
> time
> I'd encourage it is to revoke bits that we never used (you'll notice
> over
> the long history of a project folks are given commit privs and never
> use
> them. In this case, the project didn't have a chance to perform any
> oversight if the privilege was used correctly, time makes it less
> likely
> that the project will pay appropriate attention.)
>
> This is almost the exact same issue with a podling; if a user never
> actually
> participates, as the project graduates should they remain a committer?
The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted this
privilege based on their merit, not just by updating a wiki page
saying that they're interested.
>
>
> My gut check suggests the projects should ask those never-active
> committers
> if they plan to participate, or if are unlikely to ever do so. If
> not,
> adjust the committers access list appropriately (inviting them to
> come back
> whenever they have cycles and interest to contribute)
We already have the concept of emeritus members who, having
contributed in the past, are no longer active. I'd like to leave it up
to each PMC to decide whether or when to change the status of previous
committers/PMC members.
Craig
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Monday 04 February 2008 04:11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but
>> equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned
>> inactive committers from the graudation list.
>
> Personally, I don't see a difference between inactive committers in a podling
> than for a TLP. Should existing projects "prune" their committer lists on an
> annual basis? I think there is no need.
The only argument for doing so is subversion access by 'abandoned' accounts.
With the oversight of commit logs, in practice this is not an issue, so the
one aspect that root might be concerned with is a user who does not use
their people.apache.org shell login for a substantial period of time. And
those cases would be better handled by infrastructure with an ASF-wide
policy to achieve their goals of security for the foundation machines.
So I don't see a difference with 'pruning' TLP committers. The only time
I'd encourage it is to revoke bits that we never used (you'll notice over
the long history of a project folks are given commit privs and never use
them. In this case, the project didn't have a chance to perform any
oversight if the privilege was used correctly, time makes it less likely
that the project will pay appropriate attention.)
This is almost the exact same issue with a podling; if a user never actually
participates, as the project graduates should they remain a committer?
My gut check suggests the projects should ask those never-active committers
if they plan to participate, or if are unlikely to ever do so. If not,
adjust the committers access list appropriately (inviting them to come back
whenever they have cycles and interest to contribute)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Monday 04 February 2008 04:11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but
> equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned
> inactive committers from the graudation list.
Personally, I don't see a difference between inactive committers in a podling
than for a TLP. Should existing projects "prune" their committer lists on an
annual basis? I think there is no need.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Feb 3, 2008 9:11 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2008 7:47 PM, Filip at Apache <fh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...Make it part of the graduation for the contributors in the podling to
> > decide if they want to continue or not. the folks who have made the
> > podling successful enough to graduate should not have to be re-elected....
> ...STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but
> equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned
> inactive committers from the graudation list....
I would agree with that, it's simpler and equally effective.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 3, 2008 7:47 PM, Filip at Apache <fh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2008 7:36 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> ...Craig has a good point - maybe that 'pruning' process, to the
> >> extent it's appropriate, should happen before they start the actual
> >> graduation process?
> >>
> >> The question is how, and it's something no established project has
> >> ever figured out, nevermind our podlings :)...
> >>
> >
> > Hence the suggestion that some of us discussed in December:
> > re-electing podling committers is a no-brainer for active people, and
> > gives others a chance to step out.
> >
> Make it part of the graduation for the contributors in the podling to
> decide if they want to continue or not. the folks who have made the
> podling successful enough to graduate should not have to be re-elected.
> In the other ASF projects, if a committer has not been active, (s)he
> gets a chance to decide if (s)he wants to step out, one does not start a
> process of re-electing active one. That seems so backwards.
STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but
equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned
inactive committers from the graudation list.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Filip at Apache <fh...@apache.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2008 7:36 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>
>> ...Craig has a good point - maybe that 'pruning' process, to the
>> extent it's appropriate, should happen before they start the actual
>> graduation process?
>>
>> The question is how, and it's something no established project has
>> ever figured out, nevermind our podlings :)...
>>
>
> Hence the suggestion that some of us discussed in December:
> re-electing podling committers is a no-brainer for active people, and
> gives others a chance to step out.
>
Make it part of the graduation for the contributors in the podling to
decide if they want to continue or not. the folks who have made the
podling successful enough to graduate should not have to be re-elected.
In the other ASF projects, if a committer has not been active, (s)he
gets a chance to decide if (s)he wants to step out, one does not start a
process of re-electing active one. That seems so backwards.
Filip
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Feb 3, 2008 7:36 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> ...Craig has a good point - maybe that 'pruning' process, to the
> extent it's appropriate, should happen before they start the actual
> graduation process?
>
> The question is how, and it's something no established project has
> ever figured out, nevermind our podlings :)...
Hence the suggestion that some of us discussed in December:
re-electing podling committers is a no-brainer for active people, and
gives others a chance to step out.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Filip's point - and I tend to agree, is that we have quite a few
committers in many podling ideas who never translate into actual
contributors. Maybe the idea excited them, but other things caught
their attention. Maybe they were an original contributor to the
incoming codebase, but over the course of some year of incubation,
they never found a reason to contribute again.
But Craig has a good point - maybe that 'pruning' process, to the
extent it's appropriate, should happen before they start the actual
graduation process?
The question is how, and it's something no established project has
ever figured out, nevermind our podlings :)
Bill
Craig L Russell wrote:
> There are some podlings that are managing themselves well and have no
> inactive committers. These podlings should not have to undergo an
> artificial process in order to graduate.
>
> Other podlings that have a bunch of inactive committers might find it
> necessary to go through a pruning process at graduation, in order to
> make sure that the community is healthy.
>
> I'd leave it up to the community and PPMC to decide whether pruning is
> necessary.
>
> Craig
>
> On Feb 2, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Filip at Apache wrote:
>
>> I'd vote -1, if a project graduates, it does so cause the committer
>> community is healthy and works well together, and all the other factors.
>> I don't see any reason why a community should have to be re-elected.
>> It just doesn't make sense. Graduation out of incubator should not be
>> a popularity contest, if the project can graduate, they have already
>> proven themselves at that point
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
There are some podlings that are managing themselves well and have no
inactive committers. These podlings should not have to undergo an
artificial process in order to graduate.
Other podlings that have a bunch of inactive committers might find it
necessary to go through a pruning process at graduation, in order to
make sure that the community is healthy.
I'd leave it up to the community and PPMC to decide whether pruning is
necessary.
Craig
On Feb 2, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Filip at Apache wrote:
> I'd vote -1, if a project graduates, it does so cause the committer
> community is healthy and works well together, and all the other
> factors.
> I don't see any reason why a community should have to be re-elected.
> It just doesn't make sense. Graduation out of incubator should not
> be a popularity contest, if the project can graduate, they have
> already proven themselves at that point
>
> Filip
>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following up (finally) on the community diversity discussion of last
>> December [1], I propose to re-elect podling committers before a
>> project graduates.
>>
>> If we agree, I'll start a vote to add the following text after the
>> "Graduation Process" title at
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#process :
>>
>> *** Podling committers graduation ***
>> Once a podling is ready to graduate, its committers are re-elected,
>> according to the ASF's usual meritocracy rules.
>>
>> The goal is to ensure that all Apache committers have gone through
>> the
>> "meritocracy filter", which does not apply to people included in a
>> podling's initial committers list, for obvious reasons.
>>
>> The suggested process is to have podling committers (and mentors if
>> they want) self-nominate themselves, indicating why they believe they
>> should be included in the list of graduated committers. People who
>> were on the initial list of podling committers, but did not actively
>> contribute, are expected to step down at this point.
>>
>> The PPMC votes to accept the nominations, subject to the usual voting
>> rules for committers.
>>
>> The podling's mentors lead this process, usually with no involement
>> of the IPMC.
>>
>> The results of the committers graduation votes are include in the
>> podling's graduation request.
>> ***
>>
>> I think this reflects our discussions at [1], but let me know if I
>> forgot something!
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/xy57ghwdezq4w4pi
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation
Posted by Filip at Apache <fh...@apache.org>.
I'd vote -1, if a project graduates, it does so cause the committer
community is healthy and works well together, and all the other factors.
I don't see any reason why a community should have to be re-elected. It
just doesn't make sense. Graduation out of incubator should not be a
popularity contest, if the project can graduate, they have already
proven themselves at that point
Filip
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following up (finally) on the community diversity discussion of last
> December [1], I propose to re-elect podling committers before a
> project graduates.
>
> If we agree, I'll start a vote to add the following text after the
> "Graduation Process" title at
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#process :
>
> *** Podling committers graduation ***
> Once a podling is ready to graduate, its committers are re-elected,
> according to the ASF's usual meritocracy rules.
>
> The goal is to ensure that all Apache committers have gone through the
> "meritocracy filter", which does not apply to people included in a
> podling's initial committers list, for obvious reasons.
>
> The suggested process is to have podling committers (and mentors if
> they want) self-nominate themselves, indicating why they believe they
> should be included in the list of graduated committers. People who
> were on the initial list of podling committers, but did not actively
> contribute, are expected to step down at this point.
>
> The PPMC votes to accept the nominations, subject to the usual voting
> rules for committers.
>
> The podling's mentors lead this process, usually with no involement of the IPMC.
>
> The results of the committers graduation votes are include in the
> podling's graduation request.
> ***
>
> I think this reflects our discussions at [1], but let me know if I
> forgot something!
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/xy57ghwdezq4w4pi
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org