Re: [DISCUSS] Criteria for PMC, committers

[Mark Bretl <mb...@apache.org>]

I think in any point of view we are looking at Committer or PMC membership,
it does come down to merit. Does the person have the merit, which can also
be trust, to be a Committer and/or PMC member?

The difference between Committer and PMC member is not simply being
'gatekeepers' of the codebase, PMC members provide oversight to the entire
project [1], which I cannot put the same responsibility on a Committer. I
don't think there has to a promotion path in terms of Committer -> PMC,
however, I do believe there is a distinction between the two, especially
since it is the Apache Board which ultimately makes the decision for PMC
membership. A candidate be nominated for both at one time, but then it
would be an all or nothing vote.

--Mark

[1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:17 PM Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> I think it's a lot of what is under the contributing section, but I think
> it needs to be cleaned up. A lot of the what should be done is lost under
> the screen shots of things. I nice clear bullet point, with maybe links to
> the wiki for details, would be nice. If we collected all of this in the
> CONTRIBUTING.md its right there in your source and baked into GitHub, which
> is the primary place developers go, not the wiki. Then our PR template
> could just say something like “[ ] complies with contributing guidelines”.
> Eh??
>
> -Jake
>
>
> > On May 31, 2019, at 3:12 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > Are you thinking in terms of something like this?
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Code+of+Conduct <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Code+of+Conduct>
> >
> > Or something more specific to coding tasks?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> >> On May 31, 2019, at 2:41 AM, Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it might be helpful to first define clearly what code of
> conduct a committer is expected to follow.  That exercise would help frame
> exactly what we are trusting new (and existing) committers to adhere to.
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Criteria for PMC, committers

[Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>]

One concern I have about not bundling committer and PMC membership is that
there is not much incentive to nominate someone to become a PMC member.
When someone is an active contributor but not a committer it's visible in
the fact that they have to ask others to merge their PRs, which also
provides incentive to nominate them. But once they are a committer it's not
really obvious that someone is not also a PMC member, so there is no
reminder to nominate them for the next step.

For that reason I think we should continue bundling the two.

I'm also concerned with the "mateship bias" that Udo described. I do think
evidence of good judgement and a sense of responsibility is much more
important than the code that a nominee writes, and that's much easier to
judge if you have more contact with them. But maybe we can look for that
evidence specifically in the mailing list and PR comments?

-Dan

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM Mark Bretl <mb...@apache.org> wrote:

> I think in any point of view we are looking at Committer or PMC membership,
> it does come down to merit. Does the person have the merit, which can also
> be trust, to be a Committer and/or PMC member?
>
> The difference between Committer and PMC member is not simply being
> 'gatekeepers' of the codebase, PMC members provide oversight to the entire
> project [1], which I cannot put the same responsibility on a Committer. I
> don't think there has to a promotion path in terms of Committer -> PMC,
> however, I do believe there is a distinction between the two, especially
> since it is the Apache Board which ultimately makes the decision for PMC
> membership. A candidate be nominated for both at one time, but then it
> would be an all or nothing vote.
>
> --Mark
>
> [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:17 PM Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I think it's a lot of what is under the contributing section, but I think
> > it needs to be cleaned up. A lot of the what should be done is lost under
> > the screen shots of things. I nice clear bullet point, with maybe links
> to
> > the wiki for details, would be nice. If we collected all of this in the
> > CONTRIBUTING.md its right there in your source and baked into GitHub,
> which
> > is the primary place developers go, not the wiki. Then our PR template
> > could just say something like “[ ] complies with contributing
> guidelines”.
> > Eh??
> >
> > -Jake
> >
> >
> > > On May 31, 2019, at 3:12 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you thinking in terms of something like this?
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Code+of+Conduct <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Code+of+Conduct>
> > >
> > > Or something more specific to coding tasks?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > >> On May 31, 2019, at 2:41 AM, Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think it might be helpful to first define clearly what code of
> > conduct a committer is expected to follow.  That exercise would help
> frame
> > exactly what we are trusting new (and existing) committers to adhere to.
> > >
> >
> >
>