You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@apex.apache.org by Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com> on 2015/11/07 06:42:44 UTC

Discuss PPMC

Hi,

This is to discuss and clarify the PPMC membership. As evident during the
first release vote, there have been grossly inconsistent expectations on
who is on the PPMC.

As most of us have learned meanwhile, unless documented otherwise at time
of incubation, the PPMC is the list of initial committers:

https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers

In fact, as you can see, there are 49 people in the PPMC now. Several folks
expressed their surprise about this and indeed the intention was different.

We wanted to start the PPMC with the set of 6 committers of the pre-incubation
Apex repository and then grow by voting in new folks as we go.
Unfortunately that wasn't documented to the IPMC. Some of the initial
committers expressed the desire to put this topic up for discussion and
build consensus how we want to shape the PPMC and future PMC.

Folks seem to prefer a policy that is based on participation and
contribution. Here are examples of what that could comprise:

   - Code (obviously!)
   - Reviewing pull requests
   - Documentation
   - Organizing meetups and other events
   - Participation on email list
   - Web site work
   - Release management and verification
   - Publishing papers and blogs
   - Presenting at conferences

Next, there have been suggestions how such policy can be reflected in
actual (P)PMC membership, examples:

   - Trim PPMC to reasonable size. How? Folks that neither expect nor want
   to be in the PPMC may offer to resign and continue as committer.
   - At time of graduation, establish the PMC as the subset of active PPMC
   members, based on activity during incubation.

Starting with a realistic base allows us to grow the community and add
committers and PPMC members organically. Conceivably, initial committers that
had not had the chance to participate since incubation, may do so in the
future and if inclined, earn their membership. This then can be seen as
growth and diversification. Note following question in the incubator podling
status report: When were the last committers or PMC members elected?

Please express your thoughts on how to take it forward.

Thomas

RE: Discuss PPMC

Posted by "Ganelin, Ilya" <Il...@capitalone.com>.

Sandesh, to elaborate on (1), I just want to confirm that contributions should not be limited to code contributions. As Thomas points out, individuals may contribute in a variety of ways.

With regards to (2), I think it's fine to have non-committers on the PMC. Individuals who act as technical mentors may still have valuable input and guidance on the project's direction and their voice should be reflected in major decisions.



Thank you,
Ilya Ganelin



-----Original Message-----
From: Sandesh Hegde [sandesh@datatorrent.com<ma...@datatorrent.com>]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 09:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Discuss PPMC


1. Commitership only after contributions
2. PMC/ppmc post only for committers

We need to reduce the ppmc size.  We can start with Six and  then they can
vote others in.


Thanks
Sandesh


On Sun, Nov 8, 2015, 10:38 PM Yogi Devendra <yo...@apache.org> wrote:

My vote for:

1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to contribute.
2. PMC membership to be participation based.

On 9 November 2015 at 05:44, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> The original intent of the project was also to be very open on
> committership. Folks who have a desire to start contributing should be
able
> to join as a committer with a very low/negligible/none threshold. Our aim
> was and will continue to be open to building open community.
>
> As per the original intent of the project, this thread and the list to
> evaluate should only be for governance body. Committership should be open
> to all those who desire and wish to contribute.
>
> Thks,
> Amol
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Ganelin, Ilya <
> Ilya.Ganelin@capitalone.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I believe it's important to respect the original intent of the project,
> > namely to have the initial PMC consist of the 6 pre-incubation members.
> > Given that some time has elapsed since that point, however, and
> individuals
> > have had time to become involved in and contribute to the project, I
> think
> > it would be fair to expand the PMC based on the criteria you suggested.
I
> > suggest that that such individuals as have demonstrated substantive
> > involvement in those categories could be voted in to the PMC at this
> time,
> > rather than at a future date.
> >
> > Just my 2c.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ilya Ganelin
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Weise [thomas@datatorrent.com<mailto:thomas@datatorrent.com
> >]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 12:43 AM Eastern Standard Time
> > To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Discuss PPMC
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is to discuss and clarify the PPMC membership. As evident during
the
> > first release vote, there have been grossly inconsistent expectations on
> > who is on the PPMC.
> >
> > As most of us have learned meanwhile, unless documented otherwise at
time
> > of incubation, the PPMC is the list of initial committers:
> >
> > https
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>://
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
wiki.apache.org
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
/incubator/
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
ApexProposal#Initial
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>_
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
Committers
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
> >
> > In fact, as you can see, there are 49 people in the PPMC now. Several
> folks
> > expressed their surprise about this and indeed the intention was
> different.
> >
> > We wanted to start the PPMC with the set of 6 committers of the
> > pre-incubation
> > Apex repository and then grow by voting in new folks as we go.
> > Unfortunately that wasn't documented to the IPMC. Some of the initial
> > committers expressed the desire to put this topic up for discussion and
> > build consensus how we want to shape the PPMC and future PMC.
> >
> > Folks seem to prefer a policy that is based on participation and
> > contribution. Here are examples of what that could comprise:
> >
> >    - Code (obviously!)
> >    - Reviewing pull requests
> >    - Documentation
> >    - Organizing meetups and other events
> >    - Participation on email list
> >    - Web site work
> >    - Release management and verification
> >    - Publishing papers and blogs
> >    - Presenting at conferences
> >
> > Next, there have been suggestions how such policy can be reflected in
> > actual (P)PMC membership, examples:
> >
> >    - Trim PPMC to reasonable size. How? Folks that neither expect nor
> want
> >    to be in the PPMC may offer to resign and continue as committer.
> >    - At time of graduation, establish the PMC as the subset of active
> PPMC
> >    members, based on activity during incubation.
> >
> > Starting with a realistic base allows us to grow the community and add
> > committers and PPMC members organically. Conceivably, initial committers
> > that
> > had not had the chance to participate since incubation, may do so in the
> > future and if inclined, earn their membership. This then can be seen as
> > growth and diversification. Note following question in the incubator
> > podling
> > status report: When were the last committers or PMC members elected?
> >
> > Please express your thoughts on how to take it forward.
> >
> > Thomas
> > ________________________________________________________
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> > proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> > solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
> information
> > transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or
entity
> > to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended
> > recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> > dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> > action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> > have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
> > delete the material from your computer.
> >
>
________________________________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Sandesh Hegde <sa...@datatorrent.com>.

1. Commitership only after contributions
2. PMC/ppmc post only for committers

We need to reduce the ppmc size.  We can start with Six and  then they can
vote others in.


Thanks
Sandesh


On Sun, Nov 8, 2015, 10:38 PM Yogi Devendra <yo...@apache.org> wrote:

My vote for:

1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to contribute.
2. PMC membership to be participation based.

On 9 November 2015 at 05:44, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> The original intent of the project was also to be very open on
> committership. Folks who have a desire to start contributing should be
able
> to join as a committer with a very low/negligible/none threshold. Our aim
> was and will continue to be open to building open community.
>
> As per the original intent of the project, this thread and the list to
> evaluate should only be for governance body. Committership should be open
> to all those who desire and wish to contribute.
>
> Thks,
> Amol
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Ganelin, Ilya <
> Ilya.Ganelin@capitalone.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I believe it's important to respect the original intent of the project,
> > namely to have the initial PMC consist of the 6 pre-incubation members.
> > Given that some time has elapsed since that point, however, and
> individuals
> > have had time to become involved in and contribute to the project, I
> think
> > it would be fair to expand the PMC based on the criteria you suggested.
I
> > suggest that that such individuals as have demonstrated substantive
> > involvement in those categories could be voted in to the PMC at this
> time,
> > rather than at a future date.
> >
> > Just my 2c.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ilya Ganelin
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Weise [thomas@datatorrent.com<mailto:thomas@datatorrent.com
> >]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 12:43 AM Eastern Standard Time
> > To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Discuss PPMC
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is to discuss and clarify the PPMC membership. As evident during
the
> > first release vote, there have been grossly inconsistent expectations on
> > who is on the PPMC.
> >
> > As most of us have learned meanwhile, unless documented otherwise at
time
> > of incubation, the PPMC is the list of initial committers:
> >
> > https
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>://
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
wiki.apache.org
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
/incubator/
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
ApexProposal#Initial
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>_
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
Committers
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers>
> >
> > In fact, as you can see, there are 49 people in the PPMC now. Several
> folks
> > expressed their surprise about this and indeed the intention was
> different.
> >
> > We wanted to start the PPMC with the set of 6 committers of the
> > pre-incubation
> > Apex repository and then grow by voting in new folks as we go.
> > Unfortunately that wasn't documented to the IPMC. Some of the initial
> > committers expressed the desire to put this topic up for discussion and
> > build consensus how we want to shape the PPMC and future PMC.
> >
> > Folks seem to prefer a policy that is based on participation and
> > contribution. Here are examples of what that could comprise:
> >
> >    - Code (obviously!)
> >    - Reviewing pull requests
> >    - Documentation
> >    - Organizing meetups and other events
> >    - Participation on email list
> >    - Web site work
> >    - Release management and verification
> >    - Publishing papers and blogs
> >    - Presenting at conferences
> >
> > Next, there have been suggestions how such policy can be reflected in
> > actual (P)PMC membership, examples:
> >
> >    - Trim PPMC to reasonable size. How? Folks that neither expect nor
> want
> >    to be in the PPMC may offer to resign and continue as committer.
> >    - At time of graduation, establish the PMC as the subset of active
> PPMC
> >    members, based on activity during incubation.
> >
> > Starting with a realistic base allows us to grow the community and add
> > committers and PPMC members organically. Conceivably, initial committers
> > that
> > had not had the chance to participate since incubation, may do so in the
> > future and if inclined, earn their membership. This then can be seen as
> > growth and diversification. Note following question in the incubator
> > podling
> > status report: When were the last committers or PMC members elected?
> >
> > Please express your thoughts on how to take it forward.
> >
> > Thomas
> > ________________________________________________________
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> > proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> > solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
> information
> > transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or
entity
> > to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended
> > recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> > dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> > action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> > have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
> > delete the material from your computer.
> >
>

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.

Hi,

> If any of the PPMCs have generally been inactive since the project started
> can the question be put to them if they want to continue to be a member of
> PPMC even before reaching the TLC stage. What are the Apache guidelines for
> that.

It’s possible, but in general  there's no harm in having inactive PPMC members. Their circumstances change at some future date and become active again. Individual PPMC members can say they no longer want to be one.

Justin

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > If Apex goes for the latter (Committer != PMC), I would suggest
> establishing some documented guidelines regarding how one advances from
> Committer to PMC. Criteria, timeframe, etc. -- all can work.
>
> +1 to that
>
> > Traditionally (AFAIK -- I'd ask other mentors to correct me if I'm
> wrong...), initial Committers become the PMC upon graduation.
>
> I’ve seen the PPMC ask everyone if they want to be continue on the PMC or
> not. Inactive PMC members are not really an issue if you have enough active
> members.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin


If any of the PPMCs have generally been inactive since the project started
can the question be put to them if they want to continue to be a member of
PPMC even before reaching the TLC stage. What are the Apache guidelines for
that.

Thanks

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Yogi Devendra <yo...@apache.org>.

One feedback on http://apex.incubator.apache.org/contributing.html
It mentions about devel-3 for contributions.

I guess devel-3 is tightly coupled with 3.x releases. We need to decouple
this OR make it as a part of the release process to update this page in
case of major version bump up.


~ Yogi

On 1 December 2015 at 12:28, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> Guidelines have been added here:
>
> http://apex.incubator.apache.org/contributing.html
>
> Would the status page be the right place to document the PPMC member list?
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/apex.html
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
> > Taylor,
> > The intention is to list guidelines to be a committer and (P)PMC member.
> We
> > do expect to grow both the committer list and the (P)PMC list drastically
> > in near future.
> >
> > Thks,
> > Amol
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:07 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Another option worth considering is Committer == (P)PMC. In other
> words,
> > > you don't make much of a distinction. You vote on and invite new
> members
> > to
> > > become both.
> > >
> > > A number of projects have gone this route, as it can make things easier
> > > when adding new members and reduce the number of votes/discussions that
> > > need to take place.
> > >
> > > If Apex goes the Committer != (P)PMC route, I would suggest
> establishing
> > > guidelines for advancing from Committer to PMC. What you don't want is
> a
> > > perceived hierarchy or us/them situation, with no clear path for
> > > advancement.
> > >
> > > -Taylor
> > >
> > > > On Nov 20, 2015, at 4:10 PM, York, Brennon <
> > Brennon.York@capitalone.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All, I’ve done quite a bit of reading on this topic and, now that I
> > feel
> > > I’m informed on how things should work given the documentation on the
> > > Apache site [1][2][3][4][5], here’s my 2c on the whole discussion.
> > > >
> > > > First I want to clarify the roles and responsibilities of a Committer
> > > and a PMC Member according to Apache.
> > > >
> > > > Committer[6]
> > > > A committer is a developer that was given write access to the code
> > > repository and has a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on
> file.
> > > They have an apache.org mail address. Not needing to depend on other
> > > people for the patches, they are actually making short-term decisions
> for
> > > the project. The PMC can (even tacitly) agree and approve it into
> > > permanency, or they can reject it. Remember that the PMC makes the
> > > decisions, not the individual committers.
> > > >
> > > > PMC Member[7]
> > > > A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to
> > merit
> > > for the evolution of the project and demonstration of commitment. They
> > have
> > > write access to the code repository, an apache.org mail address, the
> > > right to vote for the community-related decisions and the right to
> > propose
> > > an active user for committership. The PMC as a whole is the entity that
> > > controls the project, nobody else. In particular, the PMC must vote on
> > any
> > > formal release of their project's software products.
> > > >
> > > > The biggest difference I see is that a Committer does not have the
> > power
> > > to direct the *long term* roadmap for the project while a PMC Member
> can,
> > > esp. as they (PMC Members) can reject patches as they see necessary for
> > the
> > > longevity of the project (including patches from Committers).
> > Additionally
> > > I haven’t found any documentation that changes the above definitions in
> > the
> > > context for an incubating project. Correct me if I’m wrong here.
> > > >
> > > > Now, if we (as the Apex committers / PPMC members) decide that we
> > should
> > > remove a majority of us (myself included) then I, personally, am okay
> > with
> > > that, but the better question I see would be *why* would we do that? If
> > the
> > > idea is to “trim the tree” so to speak and only keep a smaller set of
> > > members in power (i.e. as PPMC members) then it is implying that the
> > > original set of committers (that were proposed) should not have been so
> > as
> > > they cannot effectively direct the project. That’s an issue with the
> > > original proposal and, I feel, should be addressed up front if so. More
> > > than that though I assume each member that is on the original proposal
> is
> > > actually completely and acutely able to aid in the direction of the
> > project
> > > and that is why they were chosen in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > If the goal is then to quickly “build back” a larger PPMC committee
> > > based on current active contributions I feel that this is going against
> > the
> > > Apache Way (whether I like it or not)[8][9] and, esp. for the project,
> I
> > > feel hurts us when considering a genuine goal of moving to a TLP. We
> > should
> > > instead use this as an opportunity to further embed Apache Apex into
> the
> > > Apache Way and define what “inactivity” means for a (P)PMC Member and a
> > > Committer.
> > > >
> > > > Another point I’ve heard is that we want Apex to be very open to new
> > > Committers which is amazing, but I want to make a point here that I,
> as a
> > > current PPMC Member, wouldn’t want to be giving away Committership like
> > > candy. I would much rather see the Apache Way and its concept of
> > > Meritocracy[10] in action. Moreover we, as a community, still haven’t
> > > defined (that I know of) a strong set of guidelines that any individual
> > can
> > > follow to earn said merit in the project and become a Committer. This
> > > certainly shouldn't be construed as a bad thing since we are still a
> > > relatively young project and need to work these things out (and I’m
> sure
> > we
> > > will :) ).
> > > >
> > > > So, what are my recommendations?
> > > >
> > > > 1. Keep the current PPMC and Committer list as they are
> > > > 2. Establish a set of guidelines on what it takes to be a Committer
> > > > 3. Establish a set of roles and responsibilities for a Committer on
> > > Apache Apex
> > > > 4. Establish #2 and #3 for a (P)PMC Member as well
> > > > 5. Most importantly, establish a set of guidelines on what
> “inactivity”
> > > means for (P)PMC Members and Committers
> > > >
> > > > Also, because I didn’t want to clog the actual vote thread, I’ve
> > > restarted this thread. Forgive me if that upsets anyone.
> > > >
> > > > I want to end by saying that this is my first foray in the Apache
> > > project lifecycle, the Apache Way, and the general way Apache governs a
> > > project. That said I have no clue how other projects have succeeded or
> > > failed in the past with these issues, but I can only assume that this
> is
> > > certainly not the first time something like this has happened for a
> > project
> > > (nor the last) and I, for one, am confident that no matter what the
> > > decision is we, as a community, will continue to strive for what is
> best
> > > for Apache Apex to grow into a truly successful project.
> > > >
> > > > Phew, that was a bit long. Candid feedback welcome and appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html
> > > > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
> > > > [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
> > > > [4]
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Roles+in+the+Incubation+Process
> > > > [5] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> > > > [6] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers
> > > > [7] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members
> > > > [8] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#pmc-removal
> > > > [9] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term
> > > > [10] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:49 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> I've seen references in email threads to the effect that there are 6
> > > people that are/were supposed to form the PPMC, but I've not seen a
> list
> > of
> > > who those individuals are. Granted, I may have missed it and I haven't
> > done
> > > an exhaustive search of the mailing lists.
> > > >>
> > > >> As Justin mentioned, only PPMC member votes are binding for things
> > like
> > > a release, so we need to know this information. We may also have to
> > revoke
> > > karma, but I'd have to check on that.
> > > >>
> > > >> Again, my apologies if that list was discussed/documented and I
> missed
> > > it.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Taylor
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also remember that a main practice difference between committer and
> > > PPMC is that only PPMC votes are binding on releases. Committer votes
> are
> > > not binding. I see a lot of votes on Malhar release that state they are
> > > binding when perhaps they may not depending who exactly is in the PPMC.
> > > Would be good to clear this confusion up.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Justin
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> > > proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> > > solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
> > information
> > > transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or
> entity
> > > to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
> > intended
> > > recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> > > dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> > > action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> > > have received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> and
> > > delete the material from your computer.
> > >
> >
>

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>.

Guidelines have been added here:

http://apex.incubator.apache.org/contributing.html

Would the status page be the right place to document the PPMC member list?

http://incubator.apache.org/projects/apex.html




On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> Taylor,
> The intention is to list guidelines to be a committer and (P)PMC member. We
> do expect to grow both the committer list and the (P)PMC list drastically
> in near future.
>
> Thks,
> Amol
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:07 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Another option worth considering is Committer == (P)PMC. In other words,
> > you don't make much of a distinction. You vote on and invite new members
> to
> > become both.
> >
> > A number of projects have gone this route, as it can make things easier
> > when adding new members and reduce the number of votes/discussions that
> > need to take place.
> >
> > If Apex goes the Committer != (P)PMC route, I would suggest establishing
> > guidelines for advancing from Committer to PMC. What you don't want is a
> > perceived hierarchy or us/them situation, with no clear path for
> > advancement.
> >
> > -Taylor
> >
> > > On Nov 20, 2015, at 4:10 PM, York, Brennon <
> Brennon.York@capitalone.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > All, I’ve done quite a bit of reading on this topic and, now that I
> feel
> > I’m informed on how things should work given the documentation on the
> > Apache site [1][2][3][4][5], here’s my 2c on the whole discussion.
> > >
> > > First I want to clarify the roles and responsibilities of a Committer
> > and a PMC Member according to Apache.
> > >
> > > Committer[6]
> > > A committer is a developer that was given write access to the code
> > repository and has a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file.
> > They have an apache.org mail address. Not needing to depend on other
> > people for the patches, they are actually making short-term decisions for
> > the project. The PMC can (even tacitly) agree and approve it into
> > permanency, or they can reject it. Remember that the PMC makes the
> > decisions, not the individual committers.
> > >
> > > PMC Member[7]
> > > A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to
> merit
> > for the evolution of the project and demonstration of commitment. They
> have
> > write access to the code repository, an apache.org mail address, the
> > right to vote for the community-related decisions and the right to
> propose
> > an active user for committership. The PMC as a whole is the entity that
> > controls the project, nobody else. In particular, the PMC must vote on
> any
> > formal release of their project's software products.
> > >
> > > The biggest difference I see is that a Committer does not have the
> power
> > to direct the *long term* roadmap for the project while a PMC Member can,
> > esp. as they (PMC Members) can reject patches as they see necessary for
> the
> > longevity of the project (including patches from Committers).
> Additionally
> > I haven’t found any documentation that changes the above definitions in
> the
> > context for an incubating project. Correct me if I’m wrong here.
> > >
> > > Now, if we (as the Apex committers / PPMC members) decide that we
> should
> > remove a majority of us (myself included) then I, personally, am okay
> with
> > that, but the better question I see would be *why* would we do that? If
> the
> > idea is to “trim the tree” so to speak and only keep a smaller set of
> > members in power (i.e. as PPMC members) then it is implying that the
> > original set of committers (that were proposed) should not have been so
> as
> > they cannot effectively direct the project. That’s an issue with the
> > original proposal and, I feel, should be addressed up front if so. More
> > than that though I assume each member that is on the original proposal is
> > actually completely and acutely able to aid in the direction of the
> project
> > and that is why they were chosen in the first place.
> > >
> > > If the goal is then to quickly “build back” a larger PPMC committee
> > based on current active contributions I feel that this is going against
> the
> > Apache Way (whether I like it or not)[8][9] and, esp. for the project, I
> > feel hurts us when considering a genuine goal of moving to a TLP. We
> should
> > instead use this as an opportunity to further embed Apache Apex into the
> > Apache Way and define what “inactivity” means for a (P)PMC Member and a
> > Committer.
> > >
> > > Another point I’ve heard is that we want Apex to be very open to new
> > Committers which is amazing, but I want to make a point here that I, as a
> > current PPMC Member, wouldn’t want to be giving away Committership like
> > candy. I would much rather see the Apache Way and its concept of
> > Meritocracy[10] in action. Moreover we, as a community, still haven’t
> > defined (that I know of) a strong set of guidelines that any individual
> can
> > follow to earn said merit in the project and become a Committer. This
> > certainly shouldn't be construed as a bad thing since we are still a
> > relatively young project and need to work these things out (and I’m sure
> we
> > will :) ).
> > >
> > > So, what are my recommendations?
> > >
> > > 1. Keep the current PPMC and Committer list as they are
> > > 2. Establish a set of guidelines on what it takes to be a Committer
> > > 3. Establish a set of roles and responsibilities for a Committer on
> > Apache Apex
> > > 4. Establish #2 and #3 for a (P)PMC Member as well
> > > 5. Most importantly, establish a set of guidelines on what “inactivity”
> > means for (P)PMC Members and Committers
> > >
> > > Also, because I didn’t want to clog the actual vote thread, I’ve
> > restarted this thread. Forgive me if that upsets anyone.
> > >
> > > I want to end by saying that this is my first foray in the Apache
> > project lifecycle, the Apache Way, and the general way Apache governs a
> > project. That said I have no clue how other projects have succeeded or
> > failed in the past with these issues, but I can only assume that this is
> > certainly not the first time something like this has happened for a
> project
> > (nor the last) and I, for one, am confident that no matter what the
> > decision is we, as a community, will continue to strive for what is best
> > for Apache Apex to grow into a truly successful project.
> > >
> > > Phew, that was a bit long. Candid feedback welcome and appreciated.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html
> > > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
> > > [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
> > > [4]
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Roles+in+the+Incubation+Process
> > > [5] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> > > [6] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers
> > > [7] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members
> > > [8] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#pmc-removal
> > > [9] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term
> > > [10] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:49 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> I've seen references in email threads to the effect that there are 6
> > people that are/were supposed to form the PPMC, but I've not seen a list
> of
> > who those individuals are. Granted, I may have missed it and I haven't
> done
> > an exhaustive search of the mailing lists.
> > >>
> > >> As Justin mentioned, only PPMC member votes are binding for things
> like
> > a release, so we need to know this information. We may also have to
> revoke
> > karma, but I'd have to check on that.
> > >>
> > >> Again, my apologies if that list was discussed/documented and I missed
> > it.
> > >>
> > >> -Taylor
> > >>
> > >>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> Also remember that a main practice difference between committer and
> > PPMC is that only PPMC votes are binding on releases. Committer votes are
> > not binding. I see a lot of votes on Malhar release that state they are
> > binding when perhaps they may not depending who exactly is in the PPMC.
> > Would be good to clear this confusion up.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Justin
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> > proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> > solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
> information
> > transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity
> > to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended
> > recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> > dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> > action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> > have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
> > delete the material from your computer.
> >
>

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>.

Taylor,
The intention is to list guidelines to be a committer and (P)PMC member. We
do expect to grow both the committer list and the (P)PMC list drastically
in near future.

Thks,
Amol


On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:07 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another option worth considering is Committer == (P)PMC. In other words,
> you don't make much of a distinction. You vote on and invite new members to
> become both.
>
> A number of projects have gone this route, as it can make things easier
> when adding new members and reduce the number of votes/discussions that
> need to take place.
>
> If Apex goes the Committer != (P)PMC route, I would suggest establishing
> guidelines for advancing from Committer to PMC. What you don't want is a
> perceived hierarchy or us/them situation, with no clear path for
> advancement.
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Nov 20, 2015, at 4:10 PM, York, Brennon <Br...@capitalone.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > All, I’ve done quite a bit of reading on this topic and, now that I feel
> I’m informed on how things should work given the documentation on the
> Apache site [1][2][3][4][5], here’s my 2c on the whole discussion.
> >
> > First I want to clarify the roles and responsibilities of a Committer
> and a PMC Member according to Apache.
> >
> > Committer[6]
> > A committer is a developer that was given write access to the code
> repository and has a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file.
> They have an apache.org mail address. Not needing to depend on other
> people for the patches, they are actually making short-term decisions for
> the project. The PMC can (even tacitly) agree and approve it into
> permanency, or they can reject it. Remember that the PMC makes the
> decisions, not the individual committers.
> >
> > PMC Member[7]
> > A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to merit
> for the evolution of the project and demonstration of commitment. They have
> write access to the code repository, an apache.org mail address, the
> right to vote for the community-related decisions and the right to propose
> an active user for committership. The PMC as a whole is the entity that
> controls the project, nobody else. In particular, the PMC must vote on any
> formal release of their project's software products.
> >
> > The biggest difference I see is that a Committer does not have the power
> to direct the *long term* roadmap for the project while a PMC Member can,
> esp. as they (PMC Members) can reject patches as they see necessary for the
> longevity of the project (including patches from Committers). Additionally
> I haven’t found any documentation that changes the above definitions in the
> context for an incubating project. Correct me if I’m wrong here.
> >
> > Now, if we (as the Apex committers / PPMC members) decide that we should
> remove a majority of us (myself included) then I, personally, am okay with
> that, but the better question I see would be *why* would we do that? If the
> idea is to “trim the tree” so to speak and only keep a smaller set of
> members in power (i.e. as PPMC members) then it is implying that the
> original set of committers (that were proposed) should not have been so as
> they cannot effectively direct the project. That’s an issue with the
> original proposal and, I feel, should be addressed up front if so. More
> than that though I assume each member that is on the original proposal is
> actually completely and acutely able to aid in the direction of the project
> and that is why they were chosen in the first place.
> >
> > If the goal is then to quickly “build back” a larger PPMC committee
> based on current active contributions I feel that this is going against the
> Apache Way (whether I like it or not)[8][9] and, esp. for the project, I
> feel hurts us when considering a genuine goal of moving to a TLP. We should
> instead use this as an opportunity to further embed Apache Apex into the
> Apache Way and define what “inactivity” means for a (P)PMC Member and a
> Committer.
> >
> > Another point I’ve heard is that we want Apex to be very open to new
> Committers which is amazing, but I want to make a point here that I, as a
> current PPMC Member, wouldn’t want to be giving away Committership like
> candy. I would much rather see the Apache Way and its concept of
> Meritocracy[10] in action. Moreover we, as a community, still haven’t
> defined (that I know of) a strong set of guidelines that any individual can
> follow to earn said merit in the project and become a Committer. This
> certainly shouldn't be construed as a bad thing since we are still a
> relatively young project and need to work these things out (and I’m sure we
> will :) ).
> >
> > So, what are my recommendations?
> >
> > 1. Keep the current PPMC and Committer list as they are
> > 2. Establish a set of guidelines on what it takes to be a Committer
> > 3. Establish a set of roles and responsibilities for a Committer on
> Apache Apex
> > 4. Establish #2 and #3 for a (P)PMC Member as well
> > 5. Most importantly, establish a set of guidelines on what “inactivity”
> means for (P)PMC Members and Committers
> >
> > Also, because I didn’t want to clog the actual vote thread, I’ve
> restarted this thread. Forgive me if that upsets anyone.
> >
> > I want to end by saying that this is my first foray in the Apache
> project lifecycle, the Apache Way, and the general way Apache governs a
> project. That said I have no clue how other projects have succeeded or
> failed in the past with these issues, but I can only assume that this is
> certainly not the first time something like this has happened for a project
> (nor the last) and I, for one, am confident that no matter what the
> decision is we, as a community, will continue to strive for what is best
> for Apache Apex to grow into a truly successful project.
> >
> > Phew, that was a bit long. Candid feedback welcome and appreciated.
> >
> > [1]
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html
> > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
> > [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
> > [4]
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Roles+in+the+Incubation+Process
> > [5] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> > [6] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers
> > [7] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members
> > [8] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#pmc-removal
> > [9] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term
> > [10] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:49 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I've seen references in email threads to the effect that there are 6
> people that are/were supposed to form the PPMC, but I've not seen a list of
> who those individuals are. Granted, I may have missed it and I haven't done
> an exhaustive search of the mailing lists.
> >>
> >> As Justin mentioned, only PPMC member votes are binding for things like
> a release, so we need to know this information. We may also have to revoke
> karma, but I'd have to check on that.
> >>
> >> Again, my apologies if that list was discussed/documented and I missed
> it.
> >>
> >> -Taylor
> >>
> >>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Also remember that a main practice difference between committer and
> PPMC is that only PPMC votes are binding on releases. Committer votes are
> not binding. I see a lot of votes on Malhar release that state they are
> binding when perhaps they may not depending who exactly is in the PPMC.
> Would be good to clear this confusion up.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Justin
> >
> > ________________________________________________________
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information
> transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity
> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
> delete the material from your computer.
>

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.

Another option worth considering is Committer == (P)PMC. In other words, you don't make much of a distinction. You vote on and invite new members to become both.

A number of projects have gone this route, as it can make things easier when adding new members and reduce the number of votes/discussions that need to take place.

If Apex goes the Committer != (P)PMC route, I would suggest establishing guidelines for advancing from Committer to PMC. What you don't want is a perceived hierarchy or us/them situation, with no clear path for advancement.

-Taylor

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 4:10 PM, York, Brennon <Br...@capitalone.com> wrote:
> 
> All, I’ve done quite a bit of reading on this topic and, now that I feel I’m informed on how things should work given the documentation on the Apache site [1][2][3][4][5], here’s my 2c on the whole discussion.
> 
> First I want to clarify the roles and responsibilities of a Committer and a PMC Member according to Apache.
> 
> Committer[6]
> A committer is a developer that was given write access to the code repository and has a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file. They have an apache.org mail address. Not needing to depend on other people for the patches, they are actually making short-term decisions for the project. The PMC can (even tacitly) agree and approve it into permanency, or they can reject it. Remember that the PMC makes the decisions, not the individual committers.
> 
> PMC Member[7]
> A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to merit for the evolution of the project and demonstration of commitment. They have write access to the code repository, an apache.org mail address, the right to vote for the community-related decisions and the right to propose an active user for committership. The PMC as a whole is the entity that controls the project, nobody else. In particular, the PMC must vote on any formal release of their project's software products.
> 
> The biggest difference I see is that a Committer does not have the power to direct the *long term* roadmap for the project while a PMC Member can, esp. as they (PMC Members) can reject patches as they see necessary for the longevity of the project (including patches from Committers). Additionally I haven’t found any documentation that changes the above definitions in the context for an incubating project. Correct me if I’m wrong here.
> 
> Now, if we (as the Apex committers / PPMC members) decide that we should remove a majority of us (myself included) then I, personally, am okay with that, but the better question I see would be *why* would we do that? If the idea is to “trim the tree” so to speak and only keep a smaller set of members in power (i.e. as PPMC members) then it is implying that the original set of committers (that were proposed) should not have been so as they cannot effectively direct the project. That’s an issue with the original proposal and, I feel, should be addressed up front if so. More than that though I assume each member that is on the original proposal is actually completely and acutely able to aid in the direction of the project and that is why they were chosen in the first place.
> 
> If the goal is then to quickly “build back” a larger PPMC committee based on current active contributions I feel that this is going against the Apache Way (whether I like it or not)[8][9] and, esp. for the project, I feel hurts us when considering a genuine goal of moving to a TLP. We should instead use this as an opportunity to further embed Apache Apex into the Apache Way and define what “inactivity” means for a (P)PMC Member and a Committer.
> 
> Another point I’ve heard is that we want Apex to be very open to new Committers which is amazing, but I want to make a point here that I, as a current PPMC Member, wouldn’t want to be giving away Committership like candy. I would much rather see the Apache Way and its concept of Meritocracy[10] in action. Moreover we, as a community, still haven’t defined (that I know of) a strong set of guidelines that any individual can follow to earn said merit in the project and become a Committer. This certainly shouldn't be construed as a bad thing since we are still a relatively young project and need to work these things out (and I’m sure we will :) ).
> 
> So, what are my recommendations?
> 
> 1. Keep the current PPMC and Committer list as they are
> 2. Establish a set of guidelines on what it takes to be a Committer
> 3. Establish a set of roles and responsibilities for a Committer on Apache Apex
> 4. Establish #2 and #3 for a (P)PMC Member as well
> 5. Most importantly, establish a set of guidelines on what “inactivity” means for (P)PMC Members and Committers
> 
> Also, because I didn’t want to clog the actual vote thread, I’ve restarted this thread. Forgive me if that upsets anyone.
> 
> I want to end by saying that this is my first foray in the Apache project lifecycle, the Apache Way, and the general way Apache governs a project. That said I have no clue how other projects have succeeded or failed in the past with these issues, but I can only assume that this is certainly not the first time something like this has happened for a project (nor the last) and I, for one, am confident that no matter what the decision is we, as a community, will continue to strive for what is best for Apache Apex to grow into a truly successful project.
> 
> Phew, that was a bit long. Candid feedback welcome and appreciated.
> 
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html
> [2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
> [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
> [4] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Roles+in+the+Incubation+Process
> [5] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> [6] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers
> [7] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members
> [8] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#pmc-removal
> [9] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term
> [10] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
> 
> 
>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:49 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I've seen references in email threads to the effect that there are 6 people that are/were supposed to form the PPMC, but I've not seen a list of who those individuals are. Granted, I may have missed it and I haven't done an exhaustive search of the mailing lists.
>> 
>> As Justin mentioned, only PPMC member votes are binding for things like a release, so we need to know this information. We may also have to revoke karma, but I'd have to check on that.
>> 
>> Again, my apologies if that list was discussed/documented and I missed it.
>> 
>> -Taylor
>> 
>>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Also remember that a main practice difference between committer and PPMC is that only PPMC votes are binding on releases. Committer votes are not binding. I see a lot of votes on Malhar release that state they are binding when perhaps they may not depending who exactly is in the PPMC. Would be good to clear this confusion up.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by "York, Brennon" <Br...@capitalone.com>.

All, I’ve done quite a bit of reading on this topic and, now that I feel I’m informed on how things should work given the documentation on the Apache site [1][2][3][4][5], here’s my 2c on the whole discussion.

First I want to clarify the roles and responsibilities of a Committer and a PMC Member according to Apache.

Committer[6]
A committer is a developer that was given write access to the code repository and has a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file. They have an apache.org mail address. Not needing to depend on other people for the patches, they are actually making short-term decisions for the project. The PMC can (even tacitly) agree and approve it into permanency, or they can reject it. Remember that the PMC makes the decisions, not the individual committers.

PMC Member[7]
A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to merit for the evolution of the project and demonstration of commitment. They have write access to the code repository, an apache.org mail address, the right to vote for the community-related decisions and the right to propose an active user for committership. The PMC as a whole is the entity that controls the project, nobody else. In particular, the PMC must vote on any formal release of their project's software products.

The biggest difference I see is that a Committer does not have the power to direct the *long term* roadmap for the project while a PMC Member can, esp. as they (PMC Members) can reject patches as they see necessary for the longevity of the project (including patches from Committers). Additionally I haven’t found any documentation that changes the above definitions in the context for an incubating project. Correct me if I’m wrong here.

Now, if we (as the Apex committers / PPMC members) decide that we should remove a majority of us (myself included) then I, personally, am okay with that, but the better question I see would be *why* would we do that? If the idea is to “trim the tree” so to speak and only keep a smaller set of members in power (i.e. as PPMC members) then it is implying that the original set of committers (that were proposed) should not have been so as they cannot effectively direct the project. That’s an issue with the original proposal and, I feel, should be addressed up front if so. More than that though I assume each member that is on the original proposal is actually completely and acutely able to aid in the direction of the project and that is why they were chosen in the first place.

If the goal is then to quickly “build back” a larger PPMC committee based on current active contributions I feel that this is going against the Apache Way (whether I like it or not)[8][9] and, esp. for the project, I feel hurts us when considering a genuine goal of moving to a TLP. We should instead use this as an opportunity to further embed Apache Apex into the Apache Way and define what “inactivity” means for a (P)PMC Member and a Committer.

Another point I’ve heard is that we want Apex to be very open to new Committers which is amazing, but I want to make a point here that I, as a current PPMC Member, wouldn’t want to be giving away Committership like candy. I would much rather see the Apache Way and its concept of Meritocracy[10] in action. Moreover we, as a community, still haven’t defined (that I know of) a strong set of guidelines that any individual can follow to earn said merit in the project and become a Committer. This certainly shouldn't be construed as a bad thing since we are still a relatively young project and need to work these things out (and I’m sure we will :) ).

So, what are my recommendations?

1. Keep the current PPMC and Committer list as they are
2. Establish a set of guidelines on what it takes to be a Committer
3. Establish a set of roles and responsibilities for a Committer on Apache Apex
4. Establish #2 and #3 for a (P)PMC Member as well
5. Most importantly, establish a set of guidelines on what “inactivity” means for (P)PMC Members and Committers

Also, because I didn’t want to clog the actual vote thread, I’ve restarted this thread. Forgive me if that upsets anyone.

I want to end by saying that this is my first foray in the Apache project lifecycle, the Apache Way, and the general way Apache governs a project. That said I have no clue how other projects have succeeded or failed in the past with these issues, but I can only assume that this is certainly not the first time something like this has happened for a project (nor the last) and I, for one, am confident that no matter what the decision is we, as a community, will continue to strive for what is best for Apache Apex to grow into a truly successful project.

Phew, that was a bit long. Candid feedback welcome and appreciated.

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
[3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
[4] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Roles+in+the+Incubation+Process
[5] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
[6] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers
[7] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members
[8] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#pmc-removal
[9] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term
[10] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:49 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> I've seen references in email threads to the effect that there are 6 people that are/were supposed to form the PPMC, but I've not seen a list of who those individuals are. Granted, I may have missed it and I haven't done an exhaustive search of the mailing lists.
> 
> As Justin mentioned, only PPMC member votes are binding for things like a release, so we need to know this information. We may also have to revoke karma, but I'd have to check on that.
> 
> Again, my apologies if that list was discussed/documented and I missed it.
> 
> -Taylor
> 
>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Also remember that a main practice difference between committer and PPMC is that only PPMC votes are binding on releases. Committer votes are not binding. I see a lot of votes on Malhar release that state they are binding when perhaps they may not depending who exactly is in the PPMC. Would be good to clear this confusion up.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
> 

________________________________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.

+1

I've seen references in email threads to the effect that there are 6 people that are/were supposed to form the PPMC, but I've not seen a list of who those individuals are. Granted, I may have missed it and I haven't done an exhaustive search of the mailing lists.

As Justin mentioned, only PPMC member votes are binding for things like a release, so we need to know this information. We may also have to revoke karma, but I'd have to check on that.

Again, my apologies if that list was discussed/documented and I missed it.

-Taylor

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Also remember that a main practice difference between committer and PPMC is that only PPMC votes are binding on releases. Committer votes are not binding. I see a lot of votes on Malhar release that state they are binding when perhaps they may not depending who exactly is in the PPMC. Would be good to clear this confusion up.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.

Hi,

Also remember that a main practice difference between committer and PPMC is that only PPMC votes are binding on releases. Committer votes are not binding. I see a lot of votes on Malhar release that state they are binding when perhaps they may not depending who exactly is in the PPMC. Would be good to clear this confusion up.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>.

Justin,
My bad in terms of communication. I did not meant to imply circumventing
Apache process. I will put it this way

-> PPMC votes committers in as per guidelines setup (& published). The
guidelines to reflect a minimal threshold on demostration of merit. Vote by
PPMC is a must, ICLA is a must.

Thks,
Amol


On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > 1. Committership to be inclusive-by-default and be driven by interest;
> > totally open
>
> I’m not aware of any other Apache PPMC that does it this way, committers
> need to be voted in by the PPMC.
>
> >  We will also additionally need to document "how to be a committer?"
> page; this
> > page cannot have any language like "At least 30+ commits; at least 25
> > reviews" etc. if committers vote to ratify the original intent of the
> > project. something simple and indication of desire/interest. For example
> > "need signed icla" may be in it?
>
> The minimal requirements as Apache sees it is: [1]
> - demonstration of some merit
> - voted in by PPMC
> - signed ICLA / optionally sign CCLA
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html
>
>

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.

Hi,

> 1. Committership to be inclusive-by-default and be driven by interest;
> totally open

I’m not aware of any other Apache PPMC that does it this way, committers need to be voted in by the PPMC.

>  We will also additionally need to document "how to be a committer?" page; this
> page cannot have any language like "At least 30+ commits; at least 25
> reviews" etc. if committers vote to ratify the original intent of the
> project. something simple and indication of desire/interest. For example
> "need signed icla" may be in it?

The minimal requirements as Apache sees it is: [1]
- demonstration of some merit
- voted in by PPMC
- signed ICLA / optionally sign CCLA

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>.

Taylor, Justin
The original intent was to have the following two things to be true
1. Committership to be inclusive-by-default and be driven by interest;
totally open
2. PMC to be based on activity (contributions on various dimensions)

What we missed in the incubation proposal (I am responsible for that) is
the initial committers != PPMC part. Unlike other Apache projects, the
issue Apex had was the bulk (actually all) contributors were from
DataTorrent as it was proprietary and therefore they had 0 outside
contribution on day 1. Interest and community got off to a great start and
we are quickly diversifying as we intended to. However we have list of
non-contributing (as yet) members in bucket #2.

Changing the list of initial committers may not align with #1. They made it
to the list as they explicitly showed interest, and a lot of them have
since followed through. That has gone very well and some of the inactive
folks are trickling into activity on a weekly basis. It has not even been
three months, so I would propose we hold off on that.

If the proposal put forward by Thomas does go through, here is what most
likely will happen. In short term we start with original proposed (but not
documented in incubation proposal) PPMC; we quickly and periodically
iterate to grow PPMC rapidly to reflect activity as per documented
guidelines. Upon the day when Apex is ready for top level project PPMC will
then be ready to be PMC. Additionally PPMC folks will be trained on
governance aspect by then. This process will absolutely need to be
documented, published, and folks actively getting mentored to be in PMC. We
will also additionally need to document "how to be a committer?" page; this
page cannot have any language like "At least 30+ commits; at least 25
reviews" etc. if committers vote to ratify the original intent of the
project. something simple and indication of desire/interest. For example
"need signed icla" may be in it?

Based on preferences by committers it seems that there is consensus. So if
as per process we need a vote, Thomas can do so and list actions like -
create guidelines on committer to PMC; and guideline on committership in
the proposal.

Thks,
Amol

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > If Apex goes for the latter (Committer != PMC), I would suggest
> establishing some documented guidelines regarding how one advances from
> Committer to PMC. Criteria, timeframe, etc. -- all can work.
>
> +1 to that
>
> > Traditionally (AFAIK -- I'd ask other mentors to correct me if I'm
> wrong...), initial Committers become the PMC upon graduation.
>
> I’ve seen the PPMC ask everyone if they want to be continue on the PMC or
> not. Inactive PMC members are not really an issue if you have enough active
> members.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.

Hi,

> If Apex goes for the latter (Committer != PMC), I would suggest establishing some documented guidelines regarding how one advances from Committer to PMC. Criteria, timeframe, etc. -- all can work. 

+1 to that

> Traditionally (AFAIK -- I'd ask other mentors to correct me if I'm wrong...), initial Committers become the PMC upon graduation.

I’ve seen the PPMC ask everyone if they want to be continue on the PMC or not. Inactive PMC members are not really an issue if you have enough active members.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.

I think the inclusive-by-default model that Amol suggests is admirable and very much in line with the Apache Way.

Some Apache projects treat committer status and PMC membership as equal (Committer == PMC), while others do not (Committer != PMC). This is a decision that all podlings will have to make.

If Apex goes for the latter (Committer != PMC), I would suggest establishing some documented guidelines regarding how one advances from Committer to PMC. Criteria, timeframe, etc. -- all can work. 

What we don't want is too great a divide between Committers and PMC Members.

Traditionally (AFAIK -- I'd ask other mentors to correct me if I'm wrong...), initial Committers become the PMC upon graduation.

In light of this information, do we feel the need to change the list of initial Committers?

That might be new territory...

-Taylor

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 1:38 AM, Yogi Devendra <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> My vote for:
> 
> 1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to contribute.
> 2. PMC membership to be participation based.
> 
>> On 9 November 2015 at 05:44, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The original intent of the project was also to be very open on
>> committership. Folks who have a desire to start contributing should be able
>> to join as a committer with a very low/negligible/none threshold. Our aim
>> was and will continue to be open to building open community.
>> 
>> As per the original intent of the project, this thread and the list to
>> evaluate should only be for governance body. Committership should be open
>> to all those who desire and wish to contribute.
>> 
>> Thks,
>> Amol
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Ganelin, Ilya <
>> Ilya.Ganelin@capitalone.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe it's important to respect the original intent of the project,
>>> namely to have the initial PMC consist of the 6 pre-incubation members.
>>> Given that some time has elapsed since that point, however, and
>> individuals
>>> have had time to become involved in and contribute to the project, I
>> think
>>> it would be fair to expand the PMC based on the criteria you suggested. I
>>> suggest that that such individuals as have demonstrated substantive
>>> involvement in those categories could be voted in to the PMC at this
>> time,
>>> rather than at a future date.
>>> 
>>> Just my 2c.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Ilya Ganelin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Thomas Weise [thomas@datatorrent.com<mailto:thomas@datatorrent.com
>>> ]
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 12:43 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>> To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Discuss PPMC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> This is to discuss and clarify the PPMC membership. As evident during the
>>> first release vote, there have been grossly inconsistent expectations on
>>> who is on the PPMC.
>>> 
>>> As most of us have learned meanwhile, unless documented otherwise at time
>>> of incubation, the PPMC is the list of initial committers:
>>> 
>>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers
>>> 
>>> In fact, as you can see, there are 49 people in the PPMC now. Several
>> folks
>>> expressed their surprise about this and indeed the intention was
>> different.
>>> 
>>> We wanted to start the PPMC with the set of 6 committers of the
>>> pre-incubation
>>> Apex repository and then grow by voting in new folks as we go.
>>> Unfortunately that wasn't documented to the IPMC. Some of the initial
>>> committers expressed the desire to put this topic up for discussion and
>>> build consensus how we want to shape the PPMC and future PMC.
>>> 
>>> Folks seem to prefer a policy that is based on participation and
>>> contribution. Here are examples of what that could comprise:
>>> 
>>>   - Code (obviously!)
>>>   - Reviewing pull requests
>>>   - Documentation
>>>   - Organizing meetups and other events
>>>   - Participation on email list
>>>   - Web site work
>>>   - Release management and verification
>>>   - Publishing papers and blogs
>>>   - Presenting at conferences
>>> 
>>> Next, there have been suggestions how such policy can be reflected in
>>> actual (P)PMC membership, examples:
>>> 
>>>   - Trim PPMC to reasonable size. How? Folks that neither expect nor
>> want
>>>   to be in the PPMC may offer to resign and continue as committer.
>>>   - At time of graduation, establish the PMC as the subset of active
>> PPMC
>>>   members, based on activity during incubation.
>>> 
>>> Starting with a realistic base allows us to grow the community and add
>>> committers and PPMC members organically. Conceivably, initial committers
>>> that
>>> had not had the chance to participate since incubation, may do so in the
>>> future and if inclined, earn their membership. This then can be seen as
>>> growth and diversification. Note following question in the incubator
>>> podling
>>> status report: When were the last committers or PMC members elected?
>>> 
>>> Please express your thoughts on how to take it forward.
>>> 
>>> Thomas
>>> ________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
>>> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
>>> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
>> information
>>> transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity
>>> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>> intended
>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
>>> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
>>> action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
>>> have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
>>> delete the material from your computer.
>>

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>.

+1
I agree with committership based on contribution and having a smaller
initial set of PPMC with new members getting added later based on
participation.

Thanks,
Isha

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Ganelin, Ilya <Il...@capitalone.com>
wrote:

> +1 for both
>
>
>
> Thank you,
> Ilya Ganelin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sasha Parfenov [sasha@datatorrent.com<ma...@datatorrent.com>]
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 05:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Discuss PPMC
>
>
> I think documentation, website, and infra changes, and code reviews commits
> should also count as contributions, and warrant committership.
>
> Also agree with having smaller initial set of PPMC, and including all those
> actively participating and contributing to the project.
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, David Yan <da...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Chandni.
> > However, should committers-ship be granted for non-code related
> > contributions?
> > After all, what committers commit in most cases is source code changes,
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Chandni Singh <ch...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In my opinion
> > > 1. Committer-ship should be gained only after contributions (all the
> ways
> > > which were mentioned by Thomas)
> > > 2. PPMC membership can start with 6 initial members and can later grow.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chandni
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to
> > > > contribute.
> > > >
> > > > Under Apache committership is gained by showing merit through
> > > > contributions and then being voted in by the PPMC/PMC. [1][2][3]
> > > >
> > > > > 2. PMC membership to be participation based.
> > > >
> > > > Again the PPMC/PMC would vote on committers who they think would make
> > > good
> > > > PPMC/PMC members. [4]
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > > 1. https://community.apache.org/contributors/ <
> > > > https://community.apache.org/contributors/>
> > > > 2, http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy <
> > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy>
> > > > 3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see adding new
> > > committers)
> > > > 4. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see voting n a new
> PPMC
> > > > member)
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Sasha Parfenov*
> Software Engineer, DataTorrent Inc.
> 3200 Patrick Henry Drive, 2nd floor
> Santa Clara, CA  95054
> sasha@datatorrent.com
> https://www.datatorrent.com/
> ________________________________________________________
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information
> transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity
> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
> delete the material from your computer.
>

RE: Discuss PPMC

Posted by "Ganelin, Ilya" <Il...@capitalone.com>.

+1 for both

Thank you,
Ilya Ganelin

-----Original Message-----
From: Sasha Parfenov [sasha@datatorrent.com<ma...@datatorrent.com>]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 05:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Discuss PPMC

I think documentation, website, and infra changes, and code reviews commits
should also count as contributions, and warrant committership.

Also agree with having smaller initial set of PPMC, and including all those
actively participating and contributing to the project.

Thanks,
Sasha

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, David Yan <da...@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> I agree with Chandni.
> However, should committers-ship be granted for non-code related
> contributions?
> After all, what committers commit in most cases is source code changes,
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Chandni Singh <ch...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion
> > 1. Committer-ship should be gained only after contributions (all the ways
> > which were mentioned by Thomas)
> > 2. PPMC membership can start with 6 initial members and can later grow.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chandni
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > 1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to
> > > contribute.
> > >
> > > Under Apache committership is gained by showing merit through
> > > contributions and then being voted in by the PPMC/PMC. [1][2][3]
> > >
> > > > 2. PMC membership to be participation based.
> > >
> > > Again the PPMC/PMC would vote on committers who they think would make
> > good
> > > PPMC/PMC members. [4]
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > 1. https://community.apache.org/contributors/ <
> > > https://community.apache.org/contributors/>
> > > 2, http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy <
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy>
> > > 3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see adding new
> > committers)
> > > 4. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see voting n a new PPMC
> > > member)
> >
>

--
*Sasha Parfenov*
Software Engineer, DataTorrent Inc.
3200 Patrick Henry Drive, 2nd floor
Santa Clara, CA  95054
sasha@datatorrent.com
https://www.datatorrent.com/
________________________________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Sasha Parfenov <sa...@datatorrent.com>.

I think documentation, website, and infra changes, and code reviews commits
should also count as contributions, and warrant committership.

Also agree with having smaller initial set of PPMC, and including all those
actively participating and contributing to the project.

Thanks,
Sasha

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, David Yan <da...@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> I agree with Chandni.
> However, should committers-ship be granted for non-code related
> contributions?
> After all, what committers commit in most cases is source code changes,
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Chandni Singh <ch...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion
> > 1. Committer-ship should be gained only after contributions (all the ways
> > which were mentioned by Thomas)
> > 2. PPMC membership can start with 6 initial members and can later grow.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chandni
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > 1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to
> > > contribute.
> > >
> > > Under Apache committership is gained by showing merit through
> > > contributions and then being voted in by the PPMC/PMC. [1][2][3]
> > >
> > > > 2. PMC membership to be participation based.
> > >
> > > Again the PPMC/PMC would vote on committers who they think would make
> > good
> > > PPMC/PMC members. [4]
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > 1. https://community.apache.org/contributors/ <
> > > https://community.apache.org/contributors/>
> > > 2, http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy <
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy>
> > > 3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see adding new
> > committers)
> > > 4. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see voting n a new PPMC
> > > member)
> >
>



-- 
*Sasha Parfenov*
Software Engineer, DataTorrent Inc.
3200 Patrick Henry Drive, 2nd floor
Santa Clara, CA  95054
sasha@datatorrent.com
https://www.datatorrent.com/

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>.

In general the way it works out is that folks in the committer list do what
they are good at. So a meetup organizing guru will usually stick to meetup.
If he/she does start to do code review+commit, two things will happen ->
(a) they are good at it or become good, (b) community feedback will help
them and ensure code is good. Either way not an issue.

Amol


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:34 PM, David Yan <da...@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> Just wanted to clarify that I do think non-code related contributions are
> important and they do count toward merit.
>
> I just want to ask whether, let's say, a meetup organizer should be able to
> commit to the git repository.
>
> I thought committer-ship was the right to commit to the git repository, and
> not having the committer-ship did not in any way say the person had not
> contributed -- it just meant the person had not contributed much to the git
> repository.
> But after reading this page:
>
> https://community.apache.org/contributors/
>
> "Committer is an term used at the ASF to signify someone who is committed
> to a particular project."
>
> So it looks like my understanding was off.
>
> David
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > However, should committers-ship be granted for non-code related
> > > contributions?
> >
> > Yes all forms of contribution should be welcome and be considered as
> > counting toward merit. [1] spells this out quite well but it docuemented
> > elsewhere as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1.
> >
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html#community
>

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by David Yan <da...@datatorrent.com>.

Just wanted to clarify that I do think non-code related contributions are
important and they do count toward merit.

I just want to ask whether, let's say, a meetup organizer should be able to
commit to the git repository.

I thought committer-ship was the right to commit to the git repository, and
not having the committer-ship did not in any way say the person had not
contributed -- it just meant the person had not contributed much to the git
repository.
But after reading this page:

https://community.apache.org/contributors/

"Committer is an term used at the ASF to signify someone who is committed
to a particular project."

So it looks like my understanding was off.

David

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > However, should committers-ship be granted for non-code related
> > contributions?
>
> Yes all forms of contribution should be welcome and be considered as
> counting toward merit. [1] spells this out quite well but it docuemented
> elsewhere as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1.
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html#community

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.

Hi,

> However, should committers-ship be granted for non-code related
> contributions?

Yes all forms of contribution should be welcome and be considered as counting toward merit. [1] spells this out quite well but it docuemented elsewhere as well.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html#community

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by David Yan <da...@datatorrent.com>.

I agree with Chandni.
However, should committers-ship be granted for non-code related
contributions?
After all, what committers commit in most cases is source code changes,


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Chandni Singh <ch...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> In my opinion
> 1. Committer-ship should be gained only after contributions (all the ways
> which were mentioned by Thomas)
> 2. PPMC membership can start with 6 initial members and can later grow.
>
> Thanks,
> Chandni
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > 1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to
> > contribute.
> >
> > Under Apache committership is gained by showing merit through
> > contributions and then being voted in by the PPMC/PMC. [1][2][3]
> >
> > > 2. PMC membership to be participation based.
> >
> > Again the PPMC/PMC would vote on committers who they think would make
> good
> > PPMC/PMC members. [4]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. https://community.apache.org/contributors/ <
> > https://community.apache.org/contributors/>
> > 2, http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy <
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy>
> > 3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see adding new
> committers)
> > 4. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see voting n a new PPMC
> > member)
>

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>.

+1.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 11/9/15 14:04, Chandni Singh wrote:
> In my opinion
> 1. Committer-ship should be gained only after contributions (all the ways
> which were mentioned by Thomas)
> 2. PPMC membership can start with 6 initial members and can later grow.
>
> Thanks,
> Chandni
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> 1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to
>> contribute.
>>
>> Under Apache committership is gained by showing merit through
>> contributions and then being voted in by the PPMC/PMC. [1][2][3]
>>
>>> 2. PMC membership to be participation based.
>> Again the PPMC/PMC would vote on committers who they think would make good
>> PPMC/PMC members. [4]
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> 1. https://community.apache.org/contributors/ <
>> https://community.apache.org/contributors/>
>> 2, http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy <
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy>
>> 3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see adding new committers)
>> 4. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see voting n a new PPMC
>> member)

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Chandni Singh <ch...@datatorrent.com>.

In my opinion
1. Committer-ship should be gained only after contributions (all the ways
which were mentioned by Thomas)
2. PPMC membership can start with 6 initial members and can later grow.

Thanks,
Chandni


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > 1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to
> contribute.
>
> Under Apache committership is gained by showing merit through
> contributions and then being voted in by the PPMC/PMC. [1][2][3]
>
> > 2. PMC membership to be participation based.
>
> Again the PPMC/PMC would vote on committers who they think would make good
> PPMC/PMC members. [4]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://community.apache.org/contributors/ <
> https://community.apache.org/contributors/>
> 2, http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy <
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy>
> 3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see adding new committers)
> 4. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see voting n a new PPMC
> member)

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.

Hi,

> 1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to contribute.

Under Apache committership is gained by showing merit through contributions and then being voted in by the PPMC/PMC. [1][2][3]

> 2. PMC membership to be participation based.

Again the PPMC/PMC would vote on committers who they think would make good PPMC/PMC members. [4]

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://community.apache.org/contributors/ <https://community.apache.org/contributors/>
2, http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy <http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy>
3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see adding new committers)
4. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html> (see voting n a new PPMC member)

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Yogi Devendra <yo...@apache.org>.

My vote for:

1. Commitership to be open to all those who desire and wish to contribute.
2. PMC membership to be participation based.

On 9 November 2015 at 05:44, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> The original intent of the project was also to be very open on
> committership. Folks who have a desire to start contributing should be able
> to join as a committer with a very low/negligible/none threshold. Our aim
> was and will continue to be open to building open community.
>
> As per the original intent of the project, this thread and the list to
> evaluate should only be for governance body. Committership should be open
> to all those who desire and wish to contribute.
>
> Thks,
> Amol
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Ganelin, Ilya <
> Ilya.Ganelin@capitalone.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I believe it's important to respect the original intent of the project,
> > namely to have the initial PMC consist of the 6 pre-incubation members.
> > Given that some time has elapsed since that point, however, and
> individuals
> > have had time to become involved in and contribute to the project, I
> think
> > it would be fair to expand the PMC based on the criteria you suggested. I
> > suggest that that such individuals as have demonstrated substantive
> > involvement in those categories could be voted in to the PMC at this
> time,
> > rather than at a future date.
> >
> > Just my 2c.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ilya Ganelin
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Weise [thomas@datatorrent.com<mailto:thomas@datatorrent.com
> >]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 12:43 AM Eastern Standard Time
> > To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Discuss PPMC
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is to discuss and clarify the PPMC membership. As evident during the
> > first release vote, there have been grossly inconsistent expectations on
> > who is on the PPMC.
> >
> > As most of us have learned meanwhile, unless documented otherwise at time
> > of incubation, the PPMC is the list of initial committers:
> >
> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers
> >
> > In fact, as you can see, there are 49 people in the PPMC now. Several
> folks
> > expressed their surprise about this and indeed the intention was
> different.
> >
> > We wanted to start the PPMC with the set of 6 committers of the
> > pre-incubation
> > Apex repository and then grow by voting in new folks as we go.
> > Unfortunately that wasn't documented to the IPMC. Some of the initial
> > committers expressed the desire to put this topic up for discussion and
> > build consensus how we want to shape the PPMC and future PMC.
> >
> > Folks seem to prefer a policy that is based on participation and
> > contribution. Here are examples of what that could comprise:
> >
> >    - Code (obviously!)
> >    - Reviewing pull requests
> >    - Documentation
> >    - Organizing meetups and other events
> >    - Participation on email list
> >    - Web site work
> >    - Release management and verification
> >    - Publishing papers and blogs
> >    - Presenting at conferences
> >
> > Next, there have been suggestions how such policy can be reflected in
> > actual (P)PMC membership, examples:
> >
> >    - Trim PPMC to reasonable size. How? Folks that neither expect nor
> want
> >    to be in the PPMC may offer to resign and continue as committer.
> >    - At time of graduation, establish the PMC as the subset of active
> PPMC
> >    members, based on activity during incubation.
> >
> > Starting with a realistic base allows us to grow the community and add
> > committers and PPMC members organically. Conceivably, initial committers
> > that
> > had not had the chance to participate since incubation, may do so in the
> > future and if inclined, earn their membership. This then can be seen as
> > growth and diversification. Note following question in the incubator
> > podling
> > status report: When were the last committers or PMC members elected?
> >
> > Please express your thoughts on how to take it forward.
> >
> > Thomas
> > ________________________________________________________
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> > proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> > solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
> information
> > transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity
> > to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended
> > recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> > dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> > action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> > have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
> > delete the material from your computer.
> >
>

Re: Discuss PPMC

Posted by Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>.

The original intent of the project was also to be very open on
committership. Folks who have a desire to start contributing should be able
to join as a committer with a very low/negligible/none threshold. Our aim
was and will continue to be open to building open community.

As per the original intent of the project, this thread and the list to
evaluate should only be for governance body. Committership should be open
to all those who desire and wish to contribute.

Thks,
Amol


On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Ganelin, Ilya <Il...@capitalone.com>
wrote:

> I believe it's important to respect the original intent of the project,
> namely to have the initial PMC consist of the 6 pre-incubation members.
> Given that some time has elapsed since that point, however, and individuals
> have had time to become involved in and contribute to the project, I think
> it would be fair to expand the PMC based on the criteria you suggested. I
> suggest that that such individuals as have demonstrated substantive
> involvement in those categories could be voted in to the PMC at this time,
> rather than at a future date.
>
> Just my 2c.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
> Ilya Ganelin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Weise [thomas@datatorrent.com<ma...@datatorrent.com>]
> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 12:43 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Discuss PPMC
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is to discuss and clarify the PPMC membership. As evident during the
> first release vote, there have been grossly inconsistent expectations on
> who is on the PPMC.
>
> As most of us have learned meanwhile, unless documented otherwise at time
> of incubation, the PPMC is the list of initial committers:
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers
>
> In fact, as you can see, there are 49 people in the PPMC now. Several folks
> expressed their surprise about this and indeed the intention was different.
>
> We wanted to start the PPMC with the set of 6 committers of the
> pre-incubation
> Apex repository and then grow by voting in new folks as we go.
> Unfortunately that wasn't documented to the IPMC. Some of the initial
> committers expressed the desire to put this topic up for discussion and
> build consensus how we want to shape the PPMC and future PMC.
>
> Folks seem to prefer a policy that is based on participation and
> contribution. Here are examples of what that could comprise:
>
>    - Code (obviously!)
>    - Reviewing pull requests
>    - Documentation
>    - Organizing meetups and other events
>    - Participation on email list
>    - Web site work
>    - Release management and verification
>    - Publishing papers and blogs
>    - Presenting at conferences
>
> Next, there have been suggestions how such policy can be reflected in
> actual (P)PMC membership, examples:
>
>    - Trim PPMC to reasonable size. How? Folks that neither expect nor want
>    to be in the PPMC may offer to resign and continue as committer.
>    - At time of graduation, establish the PMC as the subset of active PPMC
>    members, based on activity during incubation.
>
> Starting with a realistic base allows us to grow the community and add
> committers and PPMC members organically. Conceivably, initial committers
> that
> had not had the chance to participate since incubation, may do so in the
> future and if inclined, earn their membership. This then can be seen as
> growth and diversification. Note following question in the incubator
> podling
> status report: When were the last committers or PMC members elected?
>
> Please express your thoughts on how to take it forward.
>
> Thomas
> ________________________________________________________
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information
> transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity
> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
> delete the material from your computer.
>

RE: Discuss PPMC

Posted by "Ganelin, Ilya" <Il...@capitalone.com>.

I believe it's important to respect the original intent of the project, namely to have the initial PMC consist of the 6 pre-incubation members. Given that some time has elapsed since that point, however, and individuals have had time to become involved in and contribute to the project, I think it would be fair to expand the PMC based on the criteria you suggested. I suggest that that such individuals as have demonstrated substantive involvement in those categories could be voted in to the PMC at this time, rather than at a future date.

Just my 2c.



Thank you,
Ilya Ganelin



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Weise [thomas@datatorrent.com<ma...@datatorrent.com>]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 12:43 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Discuss PPMC


Hi,

This is to discuss and clarify the PPMC membership. As evident during the
first release vote, there have been grossly inconsistent expectations on
who is on the PPMC.

As most of us have learned meanwhile, unless documented otherwise at time
of incubation, the PPMC is the list of initial committers:

https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal#Initial_Committers

In fact, as you can see, there are 49 people in the PPMC now. Several folks
expressed their surprise about this and indeed the intention was different.

We wanted to start the PPMC with the set of 6 committers of the pre-incubation
Apex repository and then grow by voting in new folks as we go.
Unfortunately that wasn't documented to the IPMC. Some of the initial
committers expressed the desire to put this topic up for discussion and
build consensus how we want to shape the PPMC and future PMC.

Folks seem to prefer a policy that is based on participation and
contribution. Here are examples of what that could comprise:

   - Code (obviously!)
   - Reviewing pull requests
   - Documentation
   - Organizing meetups and other events
   - Participation on email list
   - Web site work
   - Release management and verification
   - Publishing papers and blogs
   - Presenting at conferences

Next, there have been suggestions how such policy can be reflected in
actual (P)PMC membership, examples:

   - Trim PPMC to reasonable size. How? Folks that neither expect nor want
   to be in the PPMC may offer to resign and continue as committer.
   - At time of graduation, establish the PMC as the subset of active PPMC
   members, based on activity during incubation.

Starting with a realistic base allows us to grow the community and add
committers and PPMC members organically. Conceivably, initial committers that
had not had the chance to participate since incubation, may do so in the
future and if inclined, earn their membership. This then can be seen as
growth and diversification. Note following question in the incubator podling
status report: When were the last committers or PMC members elected?

Please express your thoughts on how to take it forward.

Thomas
________________________________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.