Nominating Committers

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

Hey all,

The thread earlier today about nominating committers has made me realize
that the community at large may not feel welcome to nominate someone for
committership to the PPMC. 

Let me say that's emphatically *not* the case. Don't feel shy about
approaching a PPMC member or the entire PPMC (via
cloudstack-private@incubator.apache.org) to suggest that we consider a
person as a committer.

While we don't want to nominate on or deliberate on someone in public,
there's no reason at all contributors and committers should feel shy
about talking to the PPMC if they feel there's a person who should be a
committer. 

These are the rough criteria that the PPMC uses to consider whether a
person should be a committer or not:

- Ability to work co-operatively with peers.
- Ability to be a mentor.
- Community
- Committment
- Personal skill/ability

As you can see - it's more than the number of patches or emails that
someone sends, though a healthy history of participation through code
and discussion with the community is a factor. 

We also don't want to evaluate solely on code contributions - if someone
is doing great work in docs, QA, marketing, etc. - we should also
consider them as well. (It can sometimes be more difficult to do so, as
we may not "see" some of that work, which is another reason why it's
vital to be very public about planning and follow-up for activities that
don't show up with "git blame".) 

Do note that we can't promise to give feedback about any discussions
that happen on -private when considering a person as a committer. If you
send something to cloudstack-private, you should get an "ack" that we've
gotten your note, but we'll not be giving a follow-up on whether a vote
was held or why someone may not be tapped as a committer at that time.
(Though it might be kind of obvious if we do have a vote and they are
accepted.)

Finally - note that a discussion + vote + getting the appropriate
paperwork and accounts set up can take a week or longer. 

Anyway - we do welcome suggestions from the rest of the community, we
just need to be sure to handle things in a way that is respectful of the
individuals who're being considered. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Nominating Committers

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> I would not be a big fan of auto-nomination. 
> The merit of a potential new committer should be self-evident for someone
> (including within the PMC) in the community to make a nomination.

Should, but it isn't always - and I'd rather have someone speak up and
express interest than get frustrated they haven't been picked and stop
contributing. 
 
> This is not a race, it is about a consistent contribution to the
> community and understanding the Apache Way (transparency, meritocracy,
> respect for peers , consensus and non-affiliation).

Totally agreed, but there's a non-zero chance that a person who meets
those criteria could be overlooked. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Nominating Committers

[Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>]

On Feb 26, 2013, at 12:23 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Can the community guy also self nominate him/her self as well if he/she
>> feels they feel they have graduated to being a committer ?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Nitin
> 
> I don't see why not.
> 
> --David

I would not be a big fan of auto-nomination. 
The merit of a potential new committer should be self-evident for someone (including within the PMC) in the community to make a nomination.

This is not a race, it is about a consistent contribution to the community and understanding the Apache Way (transparency, meritocracy, respect for peers , consensus and non-affiliation).

-sebastien

Re: Nominating Committers

[David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Can the community guy also self nominate him/her self as well if he/she
> feels they feel they have graduated to being a committer ?
>
> Thanks,
> -Nitin

I don't see why not.

--David

Re: Nominating Committers

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Nitin Mehta wrote:
> Can the community guy also self nominate him/her self as well if he/she
> feels they feel they have graduated to being a committer ?

Sure. I would actually encourage that, as it can set up a dialog between
the contributor and members of the PPMC - and can either trigger the
discussion to nominate someone, or give the PPMC member(s) an
opportunity to discuss why a person hasn't yet reached that status. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Nominating Committers

[Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>]

Can the community guy also self nominate him/her self as well if he/she
feels they feel they have graduated to being a committer ?

Thanks,
-Nitin

On 22/02/13 9:47 PM, "Joe Brockmeier" <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

>Hey all,
>
>The thread earlier today about nominating committers has made me realize
>that the community at large may not feel welcome to nominate someone for
>committership to the PPMC.
>
>Let me say that's emphatically *not* the case. Don't feel shy about
>approaching a PPMC member or the entire PPMC (via
>cloudstack-private@incubator.apache.org) to suggest that we consider a
>person as a committer.
>
>While we don't want to nominate on or deliberate on someone in public,
>there's no reason at all contributors and committers should feel shy
>about talking to the PPMC if they feel there's a person who should be a
>committer. 
>
>These are the rough criteria that the PPMC uses to consider whether a
>person should be a committer or not:
>
>- Ability to work co-operatively with peers.
>- Ability to be a mentor.
>- Community
>- Committment
>- Personal skill/ability
>
>As you can see - it's more than the number of patches or emails that
>someone sends, though a healthy history of participation through code
>and discussion with the community is a factor.
>
>We also don't want to evaluate solely on code contributions - if someone
>is doing great work in docs, QA, marketing, etc. - we should also
>consider them as well. (It can sometimes be more difficult to do so, as
>we may not "see" some of that work, which is another reason why it's
>vital to be very public about planning and follow-up for activities that
>don't show up with "git blame".)
>
>Do note that we can't promise to give feedback about any discussions
>that happen on -private when considering a person as a committer. If you
>send something to cloudstack-private, you should get an "ack" that we've
>gotten your note, but we'll not be giving a follow-up on whether a vote
>was held or why someone may not be tapped as a committer at that time.
>(Though it might be kind of obvious if we do have a vote and they are
>accepted.)
>
>Finally - note that a discussion + vote + getting the appropriate
>paperwork and accounts set up can take a week or longer.
>
>Anyway - we do welcome suggestions from the rest of the community, we
>just need to be sure to handle things in a way that is respectful of the
>individuals who're being considered.
>
>Best,
>
>jzb
>-- 
>Joe Brockmeier
>jzb@zonker.net
>Twitter: @jzb
>http://www.dissociatedpress.net/