Re: When does one become a committer?

[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
>>
>