Becoming a committer

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

There has been some discussion of the PPMC list to work out our policy 
for becoming a committer for Qpid, or what the bar is we want to use for 
Qpid moving forward. From the discussion so far we would like new 
committers to have provided meaningful contribution to the project.

The key question is what do we consider to be meaningful contribution to 
be come a committer. Once we set that bar we need to use that for 
everyone moving forward. It is probably better to be more conservative 
in general with adding new committers.

To this end we are thinking that we should see if someone consistently 
provides quality development through patches and interactions with the 
project over a period or 1 to 2 months. Based on that the PPMC will vote 
the new committers onto the project.

Is there any additional feedback to what the PPMC has come up with, or 
anything else that you think we should consider?

Regards
Carl.

RE: Becoming a committer

[Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com>]

Carl,


> There has been some discussion of the PPMC list to work out our policy
> for becoming a committer for Qpid, or what the bar is we want to use for
> Qpid moving forward. From the discussion so far we would like new
> committers to have provided meaningful contribution to the project.
> 
> The key question is what do we consider to be meaningful contribution to
> be come a committer. Once we set that bar we need to use that for
> everyone moving forward. It is probably better to be more conservative
> in general with adding new committers.
> 
> To this end we are thinking that we should see if someone consistently
> provides quality development through patches and interactions with the
> project over a period or 1 to 2 months. Based on that the PPMC will vote
> the new committers onto the project.

As an "outsider" and newcomer to the project, the proposal sounds very
reasonable to me...


Tomas Restrepo
tomas.restrepo@devdeo.com
http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/

Re: Becoming a committer

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

Posted on getting involved page... please make sure I captured all the 
comments in this thread correctly.

Carl.


Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> Lets explicitly mention documentation too.
> Apache is usually built around a "culture of code" and many projects 
> are finding it that they need to vote in people purely based on their 
> documentation skills.
> Documentation is very important for an open source project.
> So big +1 for it.
>
> Rajith
>
> On 1/11/07, *Carl Trieloff* <cctrieloff@redhat.com 
> <ma...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     Cliff,
>
>     I meant it to be inclusive as you say below. It might also be good to
>     place this on the wiki so
>     that it is easy to find at a later point and be explicit about those
>     aspects you call out. I can do that
>     when I get to work on the other wiki/ web aspects.
>
>     Carl.
>
>
>     Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>     > On 1/10/07, Tomas Restrepo <tomas.restrepo@devdeo.com
>     <ma...@devdeo.com>> wrote:
>     >> Carl,
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> > There has been some discussion of the PPMC list to work out
>     our policy
>     >> > for becoming a committer for Qpid, or what the bar is we want to
>     >> use for
>     >> > Qpid moving forward. From the discussion so far we would like new
>     >> > committers to have provided meaningful contribution to the
>     project.
>     >> >
>     >> > The key question is what do we consider to be meaningful
>     >> contribution to
>     >> > be come a committer. Once we set that bar we need to use that for
>     >> > everyone moving forward. It is probably better to be more
>     conservative
>     >> > in general with adding new committers.
>     >> >
>     >> > To this end we are thinking that we should see if someone
>     consistently
>     >> > provides quality development through patches and interactions
>     with the
>     >> > project over a period or 1 to 2 months. Based on that the
>     PPMC will
>     >> vote
>     >> > the new committers onto the project.
>     >>
>     >> As an "outsider" and newcomer to the project, the proposal
>     sounds very
>     >> reasonable to me...
>     >
>     > The "consistent" part and the "1 to 2 months" both seem
>     reasonable to
>     > me too.  I'd like to suggest that there are other ways than
>     > development to make quality contributions to the project worthy of
>     > committership, such as documentation and release management.
>     >
>     > Unless you meant...
>     >     "consistently provides (quality development through patches) and
>     > (interactions with the project)"
>     >
>     > with "interactions with the project" covering the non-dev stuff.
>     >
>     > Cliff
>
>

Re: Becoming a committer

[Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>]

Lets explicitly mention documentation too.
Apache is usually built around a "culture of code" and many projects are
finding it that they need to vote in people purely based on their
documentation skills.
Documentation is very important for an open source project.
So big +1 for it.

Rajith

On 1/11/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> Cliff,
>
> I meant it to be inclusive as you say below. It might also be good to
> place this on the wiki so
> that it is easy to find at a later point and be explicit about those
> aspects you call out. I can do that
> when I get to work on the other wiki/ web aspects.
>
> Carl.
>
>
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> > On 1/10/07, Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com> wrote:
> >> Carl,
> >>
> >>
> >> > There has been some discussion of the PPMC list to work out our
> policy
> >> > for becoming a committer for Qpid, or what the bar is we want to
> >> use for
> >> > Qpid moving forward. From the discussion so far we would like new
> >> > committers to have provided meaningful contribution to the project.
> >> >
> >> > The key question is what do we consider to be meaningful
> >> contribution to
> >> > be come a committer. Once we set that bar we need to use that for
> >> > everyone moving forward. It is probably better to be more
> conservative
> >> > in general with adding new committers.
> >> >
> >> > To this end we are thinking that we should see if someone
> consistently
> >> > provides quality development through patches and interactions with
> the
> >> > project over a period or 1 to 2 months. Based on that the PPMC will
> >> vote
> >> > the new committers onto the project.
> >>
> >> As an "outsider" and newcomer to the project, the proposal sounds very
> >> reasonable to me...
> >
> > The "consistent" part and the "1 to 2 months" both seem reasonable to
> > me too.  I'd like to suggest that there are other ways than
> > development to make quality contributions to the project worthy of
> > committership, such as documentation and release management.
> >
> > Unless you meant...
> >     "consistently provides (quality development through patches) and
> > (interactions with the project)"
> >
> > with "interactions with the project" covering the non-dev stuff.
> >
> > Cliff
>
>

Re: Becoming a committer

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

Cliff,

I meant it to be inclusive as you say below. It might also be good to 
place this on the wiki so
that it is easy to find at a later point and be explicit about those 
aspects you call out. I can do that
when I get to work on the other wiki/ web aspects.

Carl.


Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com> wrote:
>> Carl,
>>
>>
>> > There has been some discussion of the PPMC list to work out our policy
>> > for becoming a committer for Qpid, or what the bar is we want to 
>> use for
>> > Qpid moving forward. From the discussion so far we would like new
>> > committers to have provided meaningful contribution to the project.
>> >
>> > The key question is what do we consider to be meaningful 
>> contribution to
>> > be come a committer. Once we set that bar we need to use that for
>> > everyone moving forward. It is probably better to be more conservative
>> > in general with adding new committers.
>> >
>> > To this end we are thinking that we should see if someone consistently
>> > provides quality development through patches and interactions with the
>> > project over a period or 1 to 2 months. Based on that the PPMC will 
>> vote
>> > the new committers onto the project.
>>
>> As an "outsider" and newcomer to the project, the proposal sounds very
>> reasonable to me...
>
> The "consistent" part and the "1 to 2 months" both seem reasonable to
> me too.  I'd like to suggest that there are other ways than
> development to make quality contributions to the project worthy of
> committership, such as documentation and release management.
>
> Unless you meant...
>     "consistently provides (quality development through patches) and
> (interactions with the project)"
>
> with "interactions with the project" covering the non-dev stuff.
>
> Cliff

Re: Becoming a committer

[Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>]

On 1/10/07, Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com> wrote:
> Carl,
>
>
> > There has been some discussion of the PPMC list to work out our policy
> > for becoming a committer for Qpid, or what the bar is we want to use for
> > Qpid moving forward. From the discussion so far we would like new
> > committers to have provided meaningful contribution to the project.
> >
> > The key question is what do we consider to be meaningful contribution to
> > be come a committer. Once we set that bar we need to use that for
> > everyone moving forward. It is probably better to be more conservative
> > in general with adding new committers.
> >
> > To this end we are thinking that we should see if someone consistently
> > provides quality development through patches and interactions with the
> > project over a period or 1 to 2 months. Based on that the PPMC will vote
> > the new committers onto the project.
>
> As an "outsider" and newcomer to the project, the proposal sounds very
> reasonable to me...

The "consistent" part and the "1 to 2 months" both seem reasonable to
me too.  I'd like to suggest that there are other ways than
development to make quality contributions to the project worthy of
committership, such as documentation and release management.

Unless you meant...
     "consistently provides (quality development through patches) and
(interactions with the project)"

with "interactions with the project" covering the non-dev stuff.

Cliff