You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> on 2011/07/23 20:40:12 UTC
When does one become a committer?
After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
the above set of steps.
-Rob
Re: When does one become a committer?
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
I don't think we closed on this discussion. How long to we keep the
initial committer's invitations valid?
I was suggesting Sept 15th as a cut-off.
I thought we were going to send out one final reminder to all who had
not responded yet. Did that happen?
-Rob
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>> This is a great discussion. One meta-point to consider: how important (re:
>> urgent) is this to decide right now?
>>
>
> The discussion continues to resurface and is unresolved. One possible
> outcome is that we rescind the committer invitations of those who do
> not progress in a reasonable time period to submit their iCLA.
> Hopefully we all agree that if we go down that path, then deciding in
> advance and giving ample warning, is preferable then just doing this
> as an ad hoc decision of the PPMC on an individual case. In other
> words, it will be perceived as more fair if we do this as a matter of
> policy and do it consistently.
>
> And of course, agreeing not to decide would be a decision as well.
>
>> If people find this work interesting, that's great. But in terms of rules
>> and procedures, sometimes it's fine to not over-document the rules until
>> there's a case where they're really needed.
>>
>
> Since this topic continues to come up and is unresolved, I think a
> general rule is appropriate, provided we can agree on what that rule
> should be. We don't need to address fanciful hypothetical, but like
> a reusable code module, we should design a rule that addresses the
> foreseeable cases. And like code can be changed, so can rules.
>
>> Note that it's pointless to attempt to provide an individual theoretical
>> standing to make project decisions without an iCLA until we have such a case
>> actually happen; then we can have the individual work with legal-internal@
>> to understand why they won't sign the iCLA. iCLAs are strictly mandatory to
>> be a committer, no exceptions.
>>
>> - Shane, who thinks someone can cast a binding vote as a committer (i.e. on
>> code modifications) after they have submitted the iCLA, and who can cast a
>> binding vote on (P)PMC matters once their addition to the (P)PMC has been
>> properly ACKd by the IPMC or the project chair.
>>
>> On 7/23/2011 2:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
>>> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
>>> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
>>> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
>>>
>>> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
>>> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
>>>
>>> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
>>> the above set of steps.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>
>
Re: When does one become a committer?
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> This is a great discussion. One meta-point to consider: how important (re:
> urgent) is this to decide right now?
>
The discussion continues to resurface and is unresolved. One possible
outcome is that we rescind the committer invitations of those who do
not progress in a reasonable time period to submit their iCLA.
Hopefully we all agree that if we go down that path, then deciding in
advance and giving ample warning, is preferable then just doing this
as an ad hoc decision of the PPMC on an individual case. In other
words, it will be perceived as more fair if we do this as a matter of
policy and do it consistently.
And of course, agreeing not to decide would be a decision as well.
> If people find this work interesting, that's great. But in terms of rules
> and procedures, sometimes it's fine to not over-document the rules until
> there's a case where they're really needed.
>
Since this topic continues to come up and is unresolved, I think a
general rule is appropriate, provided we can agree on what that rule
should be. We don't need to address fanciful hypothetical, but like
a reusable code module, we should design a rule that addresses the
foreseeable cases. And like code can be changed, so can rules.
> Note that it's pointless to attempt to provide an individual theoretical
> standing to make project decisions without an iCLA until we have such a case
> actually happen; then we can have the individual work with legal-internal@
> to understand why they won't sign the iCLA. iCLAs are strictly mandatory to
> be a committer, no exceptions.
>
> - Shane, who thinks someone can cast a binding vote as a committer (i.e. on
> code modifications) after they have submitted the iCLA, and who can cast a
> binding vote on (P)PMC matters once their addition to the (P)PMC has been
> properly ACKd by the IPMC or the project chair.
>
> On 7/23/2011 2:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
>> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
>> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
>> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
>>
>> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
>> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
>>
>> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
>> the above set of steps.
>>
>>
>> -Rob
>
Re: When does one become a committer?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
This is a great discussion. One meta-point to consider: how important
(re: urgent) is this to decide right now?
If people find this work interesting, that's great. But in terms of
rules and procedures, sometimes it's fine to not over-document the rules
until there's a case where they're really needed.
Note that it's pointless to attempt to provide an individual theoretical
standing to make project decisions without an iCLA until we have such a
case actually happen; then we can have the individual work with
legal-internal@ to understand why they won't sign the iCLA. iCLAs are
strictly mandatory to be a committer, no exceptions.
- Shane, who thinks someone can cast a binding vote as a committer (i.e.
on code modifications) after they have submitted the iCLA, and who can
cast a binding vote on (P)PMC matters once their addition to the (P)PMC
has been properly ACKd by the IPMC or the project chair.
On 7/23/2011 2:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
>
> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
>
> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
> the above set of steps.
>
>
> -Rob
Re: When does one become a committer?
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
For me the main point is the vote. You should note that it is still
possible that one can rejecting the vote and still keep the role as a
normal contributor, user, etc. So, no vote, no committer status. *)
Everything else like signed iCLA, chosen ID, subscribing to mailing
lists is kind of following a process.
*)
Of course this doesn't count for the inital committer. Here the ID could
be the important part.
Marcus
Am 07/23/2011 09:12 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> My sense is that no one is a committer for the Apache OpenOffice.org podling who has not shown up on this list:
> <http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ooo>. That does not happen until after the Apache user name/ID has been issued by root@.
>
> Likewise, one is not on the PPMC until having achieved that status, been invited to serve on the PPMC, and shown up as a subscriber on the ooo-private@i.a.o list.
>
> The veto principle is explained in the "Veto" entry of the Apache Glossary at<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html>
>
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 11:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: When does one become a committer?
>
> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
>
> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
>
> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
> the above set of steps.
>
>
> -Rob
RE: When does one become a committer?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
My sense is that no one is a committer for the Apache OpenOffice.org podling who has not shown up on this list:
<http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ooo>. That does not happen until after the Apache user name/ID has been issued by root@.
Likewise, one is not on the PPMC until having achieved that status, been invited to serve on the PPMC, and shown up as a subscriber on the ooo-private@i.a.o list.
The veto principle is explained in the "Veto" entry of the Apache Glossary at <http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html>
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 11:40
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: When does one become a committer?
After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
the above set of steps.
-Rob
Re: When does one become a committer?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 23 July 2011 19:40, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
>
> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
An interesting question - one I've never considered before. There is
no policy on this that I am aware of. I would say that on all the
projects I have experience it is at the point the public statement is
made.
Of course, since the (P)PMC have voted in the committer they should
have been considering the individuals opinion as "binding" for a while
already (meaning they are already a valued member of the community and
have demonstrated value to and an understanding of the project
already.
> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
> the above set of steps.
If the "trigger point" is the public announcement then the individual
will have accepted but not necessarily submitted an ICLA. However, an
ICLA is only needed for commit access (or significant contributions).
Remember a veto needs to be supported with an alternative
implementation and a willingness to help implement the alternative. If
the individual has no ICLA on file and nobody supports the veto then
there is nobody to implement the alternative. So it is entirely
possible that a veto under these circumstances would not be valid.
Given that a veto is an action of last resort I wouldn't worry about
this anyway, community mechanisms tend to deal with these things if
they ever emerge.
Ross
>
>
> -Rob
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
RE: When does one become a committer?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I favor Rob's perspective on this. I think 6 months is too long for someone who has never served as a committer or demonstrated contribution (i.e., an invisible Initial Committer), but 6 months might be fine for established committers who then, either immediately or eventually stop contributing. We are talking about a 3 month rule for no-shows and I think that should work for all manner of no-shows. It will usually be simple enough to notify us of an extended absence for any reason.
I would think that similar rules could apply to the PPMC members who don't participate (e.g., don't discuss and don't vote at all).
I like the 6 months rule for established PPMC members as well mainly because, at this stage of the podling there are more of us than there is work to do in our areas of competence. There are varieties of learning-curve steepness. And there is yet to be a transfer of artifacts that we can get our teeth into, along with alignment on which artifacts get worked on where.
We will need to keep better records on who arrived when, it seems.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 13:43
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: When does one become a committer?
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I think election is an incorrect threshhold. I think the comparable state would be taking office, and that means having the Apache user name/ID and being in authz for the particular project. You can't actually perform as a committer until that has been accomplished.
>
Good, we're getting different, contradictory answers, which is what I suspected.
> - Dennis
>
> Of course, my experience is probably colored by the fact that the winner of a US Presidential Election (even an incumbent) is not President in the new term until inaugurated.
>
In the US we have two cases:
1) President Elect dies between election day and when the Electoral
College (remember them?) votes. In that case, Congress decides the
next steps.
2) President Elect dies after Electoral College votes but before
Inauguration. In that case, the Vice President Elect becomes the
President Elect.
In a sense, there was a vote to elect new committers. This happened
for the Initial Committers (vote by the IPMC), as well as for the 5 or
6 that we in the PPMC voted in. But there is some formality between
being voted in (say, being a Committer Elect) and having the rights of
a Committer. Although a Committer Elect has every right to complete
those formalities, there is nothing that forces them to do so.
One way out is simply to track a list of "Committer Elects", and leave
it at that. If they never return the iCLA then they stay on that list
indefinitely, and never get onto the PPMC, etc.
Other projects have a concept of "Emeritus" or "Inactive" committers
[1] where after a certain period of inactivity (6 months was
suggested) their karma is suspended for security purposes. If we
adopt criteria for "inactive" committers (say via Standing Rule) then
we could apply that equally for initial committers and other
"Committers Elect" who never complete their paperwork.
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:45
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: When does one become a committer?
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
>> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
>> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
>> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
>
> I believe it's our choice, but there might be a minimum. I think that everything after the recording of the ICLA is mechanical and sometimes takes many days.
>
> Maybe the policy should something like this -
>
> (1) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer as soon as the following three conditions are met:
>
> - the ICLA is recorded.
> - the PPMC has passed a committer VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC. (or they are an Initial Committer)
> - the individual accepts being a Committer by sending an email to the PPMC - ooo-private@i.a.o
>
> (2) Individuals are *ENABLED* to commit Apache OOo committers as soon as the conditions for (1) plus the following:
>
> - when their Apache ID is activated and karma to the SVN is granted.
>
> (3) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo PPMC member as soon as following conditions are met.
>
> - the individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer.
> - the PPMC has passed a PPMC membership VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC. (or they are an Initial Committer)
> - the individual accepts PPMC membership by joining the ooo-private@i.a.o and sending an email accepting membership.
>
> I think that all other rights and duties are attained as soon as the *IS* condition is true.
>
> Becoming a Committer and PPMC member will often be combined
>
>> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
>> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
>
> In order to have a binding veto, PPMC membership is required, otherwise everyone on ooo-dev can veto.
>
> Anyone who is *ENABLED* to commit can undo, but it is bad form to do it without a discussion. So, the general rule of vetoing with technical explanation and offering an alternative applies.
>
>> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
>> the above set of steps.
>
> If we use the policy outlined above then the individual has status as soon as they accept that status and provided an ICLA.
>
> Now there is the question of whether the project has a time limit for individuals to accept, acknowledge and attain Committer and/or PPMC status.
>
> If there is a time limit then it needs to start at a known point in time. A clear choice is the VOTE. For Initial Committers this would be June 13, 2011 when the Apache OOo Incubator VOTE passed.
>
> - the PPMC passes a Committer and/or PPMC VOTE (for an Initial Committer June 13, 2011.)
>
> and
>
> - files an ICLA, if this was not done before the vote.
> - the individual accepts by emailing and/or joining the ooo-private@i.a.o mailing list.
>
> I think it is disruptive to the community if there is no time limit to the invitation. But at the same time any time limit is somewhat arbitrary. No response to an invitation to join a community is anti-social, and shows lack of commitment.
>
> A 90 day time limit is generous.
>
> If the time limit is too short for an individual to get proper corporate sign off and a possible CCLA then I am sure we would accept an ICLA and the individual's care in knowing when it is safe for them to commit changes to SVN or otherwise make any contribution requiring a CCLA.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>>
>> -Rob
>
>
Re: When does one become a committer?
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I think election is an incorrect threshhold. I think the comparable state would be taking office, and that means having the Apache user name/ID and being in authz for the particular project. You can't actually perform as a committer until that has been accomplished.
>
Good, we're getting different, contradictory answers, which is what I suspected.
> - Dennis
>
> Of course, my experience is probably colored by the fact that the winner of a US Presidential Election (even an incumbent) is not President in the new term until inaugurated.
>
In the US we have two cases:
1) President Elect dies between election day and when the Electoral
College (remember them?) votes. In that case, Congress decides the
next steps.
2) President Elect dies after Electoral College votes but before
Inauguration. In that case, the Vice President Elect becomes the
President Elect.
In a sense, there was a vote to elect new committers. This happened
for the Initial Committers (vote by the IPMC), as well as for the 5 or
6 that we in the PPMC voted in. But there is some formality between
being voted in (say, being a Committer Elect) and having the rights of
a Committer. Although a Committer Elect has every right to complete
those formalities, there is nothing that forces them to do so.
One way out is simply to track a list of "Committer Elects", and leave
it at that. If they never return the iCLA then they stay on that list
indefinitely, and never get onto the PPMC, etc.
Other projects have a concept of "Emeritus" or "Inactive" committers
[1] where after a certain period of inactivity (6 months was
suggested) their karma is suspended for security purposes. If we
adopt criteria for "inactive" committers (say via Standing Rule) then
we could apply that equally for initial committers and other
"Committers Elect" who never complete their paperwork.
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:45
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: When does one become a committer?
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
>> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
>> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
>> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
>
> I believe it's our choice, but there might be a minimum. I think that everything after the recording of the ICLA is mechanical and sometimes takes many days.
>
> Maybe the policy should something like this -
>
> (1) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer as soon as the following three conditions are met:
>
> - the ICLA is recorded.
> - the PPMC has passed a committer VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC. (or they are an Initial Committer)
> - the individual accepts being a Committer by sending an email to the PPMC - ooo-private@i.a.o
>
> (2) Individuals are *ENABLED* to commit Apache OOo committers as soon as the conditions for (1) plus the following:
>
> - when their Apache ID is activated and karma to the SVN is granted.
>
> (3) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo PPMC member as soon as following conditions are met.
>
> - the individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer.
> - the PPMC has passed a PPMC membership VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC. (or they are an Initial Committer)
> - the individual accepts PPMC membership by joining the ooo-private@i.a.o and sending an email accepting membership.
>
> I think that all other rights and duties are attained as soon as the *IS* condition is true.
>
> Becoming a Committer and PPMC member will often be combined
>
>> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
>> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
>
> In order to have a binding veto, PPMC membership is required, otherwise everyone on ooo-dev can veto.
>
> Anyone who is *ENABLED* to commit can undo, but it is bad form to do it without a discussion. So, the general rule of vetoing with technical explanation and offering an alternative applies.
>
>> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
>> the above set of steps.
>
> If we use the policy outlined above then the individual has status as soon as they accept that status and provided an ICLA.
>
> Now there is the question of whether the project has a time limit for individuals to accept, acknowledge and attain Committer and/or PPMC status.
>
> If there is a time limit then it needs to start at a known point in time. A clear choice is the VOTE. For Initial Committers this would be June 13, 2011 when the Apache OOo Incubator VOTE passed.
>
> - the PPMC passes a Committer and/or PPMC VOTE (for an Initial Committer June 13, 2011.)
>
> and
>
> - files an ICLA, if this was not done before the vote.
> - the individual accepts by emailing and/or joining the ooo-private@i.a.o mailing list.
>
> I think it is disruptive to the community if there is no time limit to the invitation. But at the same time any time limit is somewhat arbitrary. No response to an invitation to join a community is anti-social, and shows lack of commitment.
>
> A 90 day time limit is generous.
>
> If the time limit is too short for an individual to get proper corporate sign off and a possible CCLA then I am sure we would accept an ICLA and the individual's care in knowing when it is safe for them to commit changes to SVN or otherwise make any contribution requiring a CCLA.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>>
>> -Rob
>
>
RE: When does one become a committer?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I think election is an incorrect threshhold. I think the comparable state would be taking office, and that means having the Apache user name/ID and being in authz for the particular project. You can't actually perform as a committer until that has been accomplished.
- Dennis
Of course, my experience is probably colored by the fact that the winner of a US Presidential Election (even an incumbent) is not President in the new term until inaugurated.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:45
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: When does one become a committer?
On Jul 23, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
I believe it's our choice, but there might be a minimum. I think that everything after the recording of the ICLA is mechanical and sometimes takes many days.
Maybe the policy should something like this -
(1) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer as soon as the following three conditions are met:
- the ICLA is recorded.
- the PPMC has passed a committer VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC. (or they are an Initial Committer)
- the individual accepts being a Committer by sending an email to the PPMC - ooo-private@i.a.o
(2) Individuals are *ENABLED* to commit Apache OOo committers as soon as the conditions for (1) plus the following:
- when their Apache ID is activated and karma to the SVN is granted.
(3) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo PPMC member as soon as following conditions are met.
- the individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer.
- the PPMC has passed a PPMC membership VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC. (or they are an Initial Committer)
- the individual accepts PPMC membership by joining the ooo-private@i.a.o and sending an email accepting membership.
I think that all other rights and duties are attained as soon as the *IS* condition is true.
Becoming a Committer and PPMC member will often be combined
> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
In order to have a binding veto, PPMC membership is required, otherwise everyone on ooo-dev can veto.
Anyone who is *ENABLED* to commit can undo, but it is bad form to do it without a discussion. So, the general rule of vetoing with technical explanation and offering an alternative applies.
> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
> the above set of steps.
If we use the policy outlined above then the individual has status as soon as they accept that status and provided an ICLA.
Now there is the question of whether the project has a time limit for individuals to accept, acknowledge and attain Committer and/or PPMC status.
If there is a time limit then it needs to start at a known point in time. A clear choice is the VOTE. For Initial Committers this would be June 13, 2011 when the Apache OOo Incubator VOTE passed.
- the PPMC passes a Committer and/or PPMC VOTE (for an Initial Committer June 13, 2011.)
and
- files an ICLA, if this was not done before the vote.
- the individual accepts by emailing and/or joining the ooo-private@i.a.o mailing list.
I think it is disruptive to the community if there is no time limit to the invitation. But at the same time any time limit is somewhat arbitrary. No response to an invitation to join a community is anti-social, and shows lack of commitment.
A 90 day time limit is generous.
If the time limit is too short for an individual to get proper corporate sign off and a possible CCLA then I am sure we would accept an ICLA and the individual's care in knowing when it is safe for them to commit changes to SVN or otherwise make any contribution requiring a CCLA.
Regards,
Dave
>
>
> -Rob
Re: When does one become a committer?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 23, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow,
> including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in,
> having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded,
> choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc.
I believe it's our choice, but there might be a minimum. I think that everything after the recording of the ICLA is mechanical and sometimes takes many days.
Maybe the policy should something like this -
(1) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer as soon as the following three conditions are met:
- the ICLA is recorded.
- the PPMC has passed a committer VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC. (or they are an Initial Committer)
- the individual accepts being a Committer by sending an email to the PPMC - ooo-private@i.a.o
(2) Individuals are *ENABLED* to commit Apache OOo committers as soon as the conditions for (1) plus the following:
- when their Apache ID is activated and karma to the SVN is granted.
(3) An individual *IS* an Apache OOo PPMC member as soon as following conditions are met.
- the individual *IS* an Apache OOo committer.
- the PPMC has passed a PPMC membership VOTE and sent the RESULTS to the Incubator PMC. (or they are an Initial Committer)
- the individual accepts PPMC membership by joining the ooo-private@i.a.o and sending an email accepting membership.
I think that all other rights and duties are attained as soon as the *IS* condition is true.
Becoming a Committer and PPMC member will often be combined
> At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For
> example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
In order to have a binding veto, PPMC membership is required, otherwise everyone on ooo-dev can veto.
Anyone who is *ENABLED* to commit can undo, but it is bad form to do it without a discussion. So, the general rule of vetoing with technical explanation and offering an alternative applies.
> I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete
> the above set of steps.
If we use the policy outlined above then the individual has status as soon as they accept that status and provided an ICLA.
Now there is the question of whether the project has a time limit for individuals to accept, acknowledge and attain Committer and/or PPMC status.
If there is a time limit then it needs to start at a known point in time. A clear choice is the VOTE. For Initial Committers this would be June 13, 2011 when the Apache OOo Incubator VOTE passed.
- the PPMC passes a Committer and/or PPMC VOTE (for an Initial Committer June 13, 2011.)
and
- files an ICLA, if this was not done before the vote.
- the individual accepts by emailing and/or joining the ooo-private@i.a.o mailing list.
I think it is disruptive to the community if there is no time limit to the invitation. But at the same time any time limit is somewhat arbitrary. No response to an invitation to join a community is anti-social, and shows lack of commitment.
A 90 day time limit is generous.
If the time limit is too short for an individual to get proper corporate sign off and a possible CCLA then I am sure we would accept an ICLA and the individual's care in knowing when it is safe for them to commit changes to SVN or otherwise make any contribution requiring a CCLA.
Regards,
Dave
>
>
> -Rob