Felix Roles and Processes

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Hot on the heels of the PPMC list, here is the start of a proposal for 
Felix roles and process definitions. Much of it was lifted from Jakarta, 
since they seemed to be structured similarly to what I think is 
reasonable...it is modified from Jakarta, however.

Please give me feedback. I would like to discuss any feedback, come to 
agreement, and incorporate it back into the document so we can 
eventually have an official PPMC vote on accepting it as our policy.

-> richard

Re: Felix Roles and Processes

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

I have simplified the process definition:

    
http://docs.safehaus.org/display/OSGI/Felix+Community+Roles+and+Processes+Proposal

-> richard

Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Hot on the heels of the PPMC list, here is the start of a proposal for 
> Felix roles and process definitions. Much of it was lifted from 
> Jakarta, since they seemed to be structured similarly to what I think 
> is reasonable...it is modified from Jakarta, however.
>
> Please give me feedback. I would like to discuss any feedback, come to 
> agreement, and incorporate it back into the document so we can 
> eventually have an official PPMC vote on accepting it as our policy.
>
> -> richard
>

RE: Felix Roles and Processes

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

> > I'm assuming you're talking about:
> >
http://docs.safehaus.org/display/OSGI/Felix+Community+Roles+and+Processes+Pr
oposal

When will you be moving the docs onto ASF infrastructure?

	--- Noel

Re: Felix Roles and Processes

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Marcel Offermans wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> Hot on the heels of the PPMC list, here is the start of a proposal 
>> for Felix roles and process definitions. Much of it was lifted from 
>> Jakarta, since they seemed to be structured similarly to what I think 
>> is reasonable...it is modified from Jakarta, however.
>
> I'm assuming you're talking about:
> http://docs.safehaus.org/display/OSGI/Felix+Community+Roles+and+Processes+Proposal 
>

D'oh! Yes, I forgot to send the link! Yes, you are correct Marcel, that 
is the link.

>> Please give me feedback. I would like to discuss any feedback, come 
>> to agreement, and incorporate it back into the document so we can 
>> eventually have an official PPMC vote on accepting it as our policy.
>
> About adding names to the source: I think that's a good idea, so at 
> least if you look at the source you can see who created it. Of course 
> svn blame like reports give a much better picture, but that takes more 
> effort too.

There was a long discussion about this on the Harmony mailing list some 
time back...I think they end up against it, since it is a pain in the 
ass. It also creates situations where people are just modifying source 
files so that they can add their name. I guess I lean slightly against 
it, but it would be nice if we had some easy way of creating a report 
for who contributed and what to a given artifact.

> In theory, adding the role of "tester" might be a good idea, but I'm 
> not sure if we can find any. :)

A tester would certainly fall into the role of contributor. I imagine if 
the tester also submitted patches, then he/she could fall into committer 
eventually as well. So, I am not sure that we need a separate role for 
that, but we could add words to the text to explicitly include testing 
as a contribution.

-> richard

Re: Felix Roles and Processes

[Herko ter Horst <he...@terhorst.net>]

> How's a "tester" different then a "user" ?

You don't work for Microsoft, do you? ;)

> regards,
> 
> Karl
> 
> --
> Karl Pauls
> karlpauls@gmail.com


Sry, couldn't resist :D

Herko

Re: Felix Roles and Processes

[Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com>]

> About adding names to the source: I think that's a good idea, so at
> least if you look at the source you can see who created it. Of course
> svn blame like reports give a much better picture, but that takes more
> effort too.

Please don't. This will make everything more complicated. As you say,
svn is better suited to this kind of stuff in regard to IP and blame
issues and I don't think it is important to see who created something
in the actual file. Names of people to note should go to the NOTICE
file.

> In theory, adding the role of "tester" might be a good idea, but I'm not
> sure if we can find any. :)

How's a "tester" different then a "user" ?

regards,

Karl

--
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com

Re: Felix Roles and Processes

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Upayavira wrote:
> Generally Apache errs away from adding author tags to specific files, as
> it tends towards 'code ownership', whereas all of the code is owned by
> the community.
>
> Attribution would be on a contributors page where committers and
> substantial contributors can be listed. Also, if we have a status file
> showing all changes we can have a due-to which shows who was responsible
> for reporting/patching a specific bug.
>   

Sounds reasonable to me.

> Well, unless they're paid to be a tester, which is unlikely, they're
> going to be a user/contributor/committer too.
>   

My thought too.

> The number of votes is set to three as a legal requirement. Three votes
> constitutes a legally binding vote. We could have our requirement being
> more though if we chose to.
>   

I am fine with three, although I didn't know it was a legal requirement, 
I just didn't want people to think that I pulled that number out of a 
hat when creating the document. :-)

> The 3/4 majority of the PPMC is interesting on two counts. Over time we
> may have quiet members of the PMC. If we have over 1/4 are quiet, we end
> up stuck.

True, but if we keep track of the votes we could lobby them. :-)

I can think of alternatives, such as 3/4 of issued votes after a certain 
period of time...

> Secondly, it implies that a -1 vote would not necessarily
> prevent someone from being approved. I would rather that -1 vote be
> dealt with and converted to a +1 (or at least +0) before the individual
> was accepted.
>   

I don't fully disagree, however, it seems like we would need some way to 
break dead locks, no? What happens if there was just one person that was 
-1 with everyone else +1 and he/she could not be convinced? Does the 
group suffer?

> Exceptions: To my mind, someone becoming a PMC member would also become
> a committer at the same time, whether they actually do commit code or not.

That sounds reasonable to me.

-> richard

RE: Felix Roles and Processes

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

> The number of votes is set to three as a legal requirement. Three votes
> constitutes a legally binding vote.

And must be cast by PMC members.

A single -1 is a veto ON TECHNICAL matters, else it is simple majority.  But
see below.

> The 3/4 majority of the PPMC is interesting on two counts.

Other PMCs have looked at it.  The only one that ever really tried to codify
things this much is also the poster child for community failure, and was
disbanded by the ASF.  As I have said before, the goal is consensus -- if
you are counting votes, you have already lost.

	--- Noel

Re: Felix Roles and Processes

[Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>]

Marcel Offermans wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
> 
>> Hot on the heels of the PPMC list, here is the start of a proposal for
>> Felix roles and process definitions. Much of it was lifted from
>> Jakarta, since they seemed to be structured similarly to what I think
>> is reasonable...it is modified from Jakarta, however.
> 
> I'm assuming you're talking about:
> http://docs.safehaus.org/display/OSGI/Felix+Community+Roles+and+Processes+Proposal
> 
> 
>> Please give me feedback. I would like to discuss any feedback, come to
>> agreement, and incorporate it back into the document so we can
>> eventually have an official PPMC vote on accepting it as our policy.
> 
> About adding names to the source: I think that's a good idea, so at
> least if you look at the source you can see who created it. Of course
> svn blame like reports give a much better picture, but that takes more
> effort too.

Generally Apache errs away from adding author tags to specific files, as
it tends towards 'code ownership', whereas all of the code is owned by
the community.

Attribution would be on a contributors page where committers and
substantial contributors can be listed. Also, if we have a status file
showing all changes we can have a due-to which shows who was responsible
for reporting/patching a specific bug.

> In theory, adding the role of "tester" might be a good idea, but I'm not
> sure if we can find any. :)

Well, unless they're paid to be a tester, which is unlikely, they're
going to be a user/contributor/committer too.

The number of votes is set to three as a legal requirement. Three votes
constitutes a legally binding vote. We could have our requirement being
more though if we chose to.

The 3/4 majority of the PPMC is interesting on two counts. Over time we
may have quiet members of the PMC. If we have over 1/4 are quiet, we end
up stuck. Secondly, it implies that a -1 vote would not necessarily
prevent someone from being approved. I would rather that -1 vote be
dealt with and converted to a +1 (or at least +0) before the individual
was accepted.

Exceptions: To my mind, someone becoming a PMC member would also become
a committer at the same time, whether they actually do commit code or not.

Regards, Upayavira

Re: Felix Roles and Processes

[Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>]

Richard S. Hall wrote:

> Hot on the heels of the PPMC list, here is the start of a proposal for 
> Felix roles and process definitions. Much of it was lifted from 
> Jakarta, since they seemed to be structured similarly to what I think 
> is reasonable...it is modified from Jakarta, however.

I'm assuming you're talking about:
http://docs.safehaus.org/display/OSGI/Felix+Community+Roles+and+Processes+Proposal

> Please give me feedback. I would like to discuss any feedback, come to 
> agreement, and incorporate it back into the document so we can 
> eventually have an official PPMC vote on accepting it as our policy.

About adding names to the source: I think that's a good idea, so at 
least if you look at the source you can see who created it. Of course 
svn blame like reports give a much better picture, but that takes more 
effort too.

In theory, adding the role of "tester" might be a good idea, but I'm not 
sure if we can find any. :)

Re: Felix Roles and Processes

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Jakarta is massively overspec'd/engineered.  Less is more.  Keep it simple.
> Projects do not need bylaws.  The ASF bylaws are the only ones.

I don't have a problem with that. I just grabbed some text. My main 
interest was the different roles.

-> richard

RE: Felix Roles and Processes

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Richard,

Jakarta is massively overspec'd/engineered.  Less is more.  Keep it simple.
Projects do not need bylaws.  The ASF bylaws are the only ones.

	--- Noel