You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@onami.apache.org by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> on 2013/02/02 16:40:47 UTC
Graduation thoughts II: forming a PMC roaster
Hi all,
when we graduate we need to form a PMC. There are two operational
models I know In the ASF:
1) Committer == PMC
I think this works OK if all people are nice and friends and know each
other good. But personally I don't like it so much. Others think
different and cannot see good reasons to differ between PMC and
Committers. This model would say: everybody from the project has a
binding vote.
2) Committer < PMC
This model says, you can become committer and access source code. But
when it comes to decisions only the PMC have binding votes. It doesn't
mean a committer can't influence the project; it just says only PMC
can really block things.
I like this model more. The reason is, in future we might vote in new
committers who we might not know so well. It might turn out they are
not so nice as they looked in the beginning. I don't want to give out
binding votes to people I don't know so well.
In my opinion, option 2 gives us the chance to include people quicker.
Option 1 would force us to look a long term to every individual and
vote later.
There are different views on both models. Of course we can decide on
something else too. But for now I would love to see model 2 at Onami.
Are there any other thoughts?
What happens when graduating?
When we graduate we need to form a PMC. it is also the time to
"remove" persons from the project, when they are not longer interested
and don't want to commit.
We should look at our community and identify people who really drive
Onami. Maybe we can simply ask our members if they want to join the
PMC or not. I believe in our case folks who haven't got much time to
help here, may want to stay committer and join as PMC later. Thats
perfectly ok.
Once we formed the PMC we should nominate potential chairs. A chair is
the guy from the PMC who sends reports to the board. He doesn't have
"super extra powers" inside the project. But actually I think the
chair is a pretty respected person.
The first I ask now is which model we would like to take.
Please ask me anything you want to know on voting, pmc roles etc - now
is the time and I have a couple of links.
Cheers
Christian
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Graduation thoughts II: forming a PMC roaster
Posted by Daniel Manzke <da...@googlemail.com>.
I'm totally on your side guys. Second one is the one to form a responsible
community. Driven by the inspirations of everyone but decided by group of
long-term members.
Bye,
Daniel
2013/2/3 Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
> +1 for model 2.
>
> 2013/2/2 Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > when we graduate we need to form a PMC. There are two operational
> > models I know In the ASF:
> >
> > 1) Committer == PMC
> >
> > I think this works OK if all people are nice and friends and know each
> > other good. But personally I don't like it so much. Others think
> > different and cannot see good reasons to differ between PMC and
> > Committers. This model would say: everybody from the project has a
> > binding vote.
> >
> > 2) Committer < PMC
> >
> > This model says, you can become committer and access source code. But
> > when it comes to decisions only the PMC have binding votes. It doesn't
> > mean a committer can't influence the project; it just says only PMC
> > can really block things.
> >
> > I like this model more. The reason is, in future we might vote in new
> > committers who we might not know so well. It might turn out they are
> > not so nice as they looked in the beginning. I don't want to give out
> > binding votes to people I don't know so well.
> >
> > In my opinion, option 2 gives us the chance to include people quicker.
> > Option 1 would force us to look a long term to every individual and
> > vote later.
> >
> > There are different views on both models. Of course we can decide on
> > something else too. But for now I would love to see model 2 at Onami.
> >
> > Are there any other thoughts?
> >
> > What happens when graduating?
> >
> > When we graduate we need to form a PMC. it is also the time to
> > "remove" persons from the project, when they are not longer interested
> > and don't want to commit.
> >
> > We should look at our community and identify people who really drive
> > Onami. Maybe we can simply ask our members if they want to join the
> > PMC or not. I believe in our case folks who haven't got much time to
> > help here, may want to stay committer and join as PMC later. Thats
> > perfectly ok.
> >
> > Once we formed the PMC we should nominate potential chairs. A chair is
> > the guy from the PMC who sends reports to the board. He doesn't have
> > "super extra powers" inside the project. But actually I think the
> > chair is a pretty respected person.
> >
> > The first I ask now is which model we would like to take.
> >
> > Please ask me anything you want to know on voting, pmc roles etc - now
> > is the time and I have a couple of links.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Christian
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.grobmeier.de
> > https://www.timeandbill.de
>
>
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>
--
Viele Grüße/Best Regards
Daniel Manzke
Re: Graduation thoughts II: forming a PMC roaster
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
+1 for model 2.
2013/2/2 Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> when we graduate we need to form a PMC. There are two operational
> models I know In the ASF:
>
> 1) Committer == PMC
>
> I think this works OK if all people are nice and friends and know each
> other good. But personally I don't like it so much. Others think
> different and cannot see good reasons to differ between PMC and
> Committers. This model would say: everybody from the project has a
> binding vote.
>
> 2) Committer < PMC
>
> This model says, you can become committer and access source code. But
> when it comes to decisions only the PMC have binding votes. It doesn't
> mean a committer can't influence the project; it just says only PMC
> can really block things.
>
> I like this model more. The reason is, in future we might vote in new
> committers who we might not know so well. It might turn out they are
> not so nice as they looked in the beginning. I don't want to give out
> binding votes to people I don't know so well.
>
> In my opinion, option 2 gives us the chance to include people quicker.
> Option 1 would force us to look a long term to every individual and
> vote later.
>
> There are different views on both models. Of course we can decide on
> something else too. But for now I would love to see model 2 at Onami.
>
> Are there any other thoughts?
>
> What happens when graduating?
>
> When we graduate we need to form a PMC. it is also the time to
> "remove" persons from the project, when they are not longer interested
> and don't want to commit.
>
> We should look at our community and identify people who really drive
> Onami. Maybe we can simply ask our members if they want to join the
> PMC or not. I believe in our case folks who haven't got much time to
> help here, may want to stay committer and join as PMC later. Thats
> perfectly ok.
>
> Once we formed the PMC we should nominate potential chairs. A chair is
> the guy from the PMC who sends reports to the board. He doesn't have
> "super extra powers" inside the project. But actually I think the
> chair is a pretty respected person.
>
> The first I ask now is which model we would like to take.
>
> Please ask me anything you want to know on voting, pmc roles etc - now
> is the time and I have a couple of links.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
--
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: Graduation thoughts II: forming a PMC roaster
Posted by Ioannis Canellos <io...@gmail.com>.
Unless, the size of the pmc is really small, there is no actual reason to
have all committers in the pmc. So model 2 sounds better for the project.
--
*Ioannis Canellos*
*
**
Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
**
Twitter: iocanel
*
Re: Graduation thoughts II: forming a PMC roaster
Posted by Eric Charles <er...@apache.org>.
+1 also for model 2
Thx, Eric
On 02/02/2013 16:01, Christoph Engelbert wrote:
> Even if I'm not here to give a real vote:
> I would suggest the second model from the reason you already mentioned.
>
> Chris :-)
>
> Am 02.02.2013 16:48, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
>> Hi mate!
>>
>> +1 for model number 2 as well - there are a lot of reasons IMHO to not
>> automatically include new committers to the PMC and it's not a case
>> that more popular, well established, more experienced ASF communities
>> follow that model as well.
>>
>> Thanks a lot for taking care!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> when we graduate we need to form a PMC. There are two operational
>>> models I know In the ASF:
>>>
>>> 1) Committer == PMC
>>>
>>> I think this works OK if all people are nice and friends and know each
>>> other good. But personally I don't like it so much. Others think
>>> different and cannot see good reasons to differ between PMC and
>>> Committers. This model would say: everybody from the project has a
>>> binding vote.
>>>
>>> 2) Committer < PMC
>>>
>>> This model says, you can become committer and access source code. But
>>> when it comes to decisions only the PMC have binding votes. It doesn't
>>> mean a committer can't influence the project; it just says only PMC
>>> can really block things.
>>>
>>> I like this model more. The reason is, in future we might vote in new
>>> committers who we might not know so well. It might turn out they are
>>> not so nice as they looked in the beginning. I don't want to give out
>>> binding votes to people I don't know so well.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, option 2 gives us the chance to include people quicker.
>>> Option 1 would force us to look a long term to every individual and
>>> vote later.
>>>
>>> There are different views on both models. Of course we can decide on
>>> something else too. But for now I would love to see model 2 at Onami.
>>>
>>> Are there any other thoughts?
>>>
>>> What happens when graduating?
>>>
>>> When we graduate we need to form a PMC. it is also the time to
>>> "remove" persons from the project, when they are not longer interested
>>> and don't want to commit.
>>>
>>> We should look at our community and identify people who really drive
>>> Onami. Maybe we can simply ask our members if they want to join the
>>> PMC or not. I believe in our case folks who haven't got much time to
>>> help here, may want to stay committer and join as PMC later. Thats
>>> perfectly ok.
>>>
>>> Once we formed the PMC we should nominate potential chairs. A chair is
>>> the guy from the PMC who sends reports to the board. He doesn't have
>>> "super extra powers" inside the project. But actually I think the
>>> chair is a pretty respected person.
>>>
>>> The first I ask now is which model we would like to take.
>>>
>>> Please ask me anything you want to know on voting, pmc roles etc - now
>>> is the time and I have a couple of links.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>
Re: Graduation thoughts II: forming a PMC roaster
Posted by Christoph Engelbert <no...@apache.org>.
Even if I'm not here to give a real vote:
I would suggest the second model from the reason you already mentioned.
Chris :-)
Am 02.02.2013 16:48, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
> Hi mate!
>
> +1 for model number 2 as well - there are a lot of reasons IMHO to not
> automatically include new committers to the PMC and it's not a case
> that more popular, well established, more experienced ASF communities
> follow that model as well.
>
> Thanks a lot for taking care!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> when we graduate we need to form a PMC. There are two operational
>> models I know In the ASF:
>>
>> 1) Committer == PMC
>>
>> I think this works OK if all people are nice and friends and know each
>> other good. But personally I don't like it so much. Others think
>> different and cannot see good reasons to differ between PMC and
>> Committers. This model would say: everybody from the project has a
>> binding vote.
>>
>> 2) Committer < PMC
>>
>> This model says, you can become committer and access source code. But
>> when it comes to decisions only the PMC have binding votes. It doesn't
>> mean a committer can't influence the project; it just says only PMC
>> can really block things.
>>
>> I like this model more. The reason is, in future we might vote in new
>> committers who we might not know so well. It might turn out they are
>> not so nice as they looked in the beginning. I don't want to give out
>> binding votes to people I don't know so well.
>>
>> In my opinion, option 2 gives us the chance to include people quicker.
>> Option 1 would force us to look a long term to every individual and
>> vote later.
>>
>> There are different views on both models. Of course we can decide on
>> something else too. But for now I would love to see model 2 at Onami.
>>
>> Are there any other thoughts?
>>
>> What happens when graduating?
>>
>> When we graduate we need to form a PMC. it is also the time to
>> "remove" persons from the project, when they are not longer interested
>> and don't want to commit.
>>
>> We should look at our community and identify people who really drive
>> Onami. Maybe we can simply ask our members if they want to join the
>> PMC or not. I believe in our case folks who haven't got much time to
>> help here, may want to stay committer and join as PMC later. Thats
>> perfectly ok.
>>
>> Once we formed the PMC we should nominate potential chairs. A chair is
>> the guy from the PMC who sends reports to the board. He doesn't have
>> "super extra powers" inside the project. But actually I think the
>> chair is a pretty respected person.
>>
>> The first I ask now is which model we would like to take.
>>
>> Please ask me anything you want to know on voting, pmc roles etc - now
>> is the time and I have a couple of links.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Graduation thoughts II: forming a PMC roaster
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi mate!
+1 for model number 2 as well - there are a lot of reasons IMHO to not
automatically include new committers to the PMC and it's not a case
that more popular, well established, more experienced ASF communities
follow that model as well.
Thanks a lot for taking care!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> when we graduate we need to form a PMC. There are two operational
> models I know In the ASF:
>
> 1) Committer == PMC
>
> I think this works OK if all people are nice and friends and know each
> other good. But personally I don't like it so much. Others think
> different and cannot see good reasons to differ between PMC and
> Committers. This model would say: everybody from the project has a
> binding vote.
>
> 2) Committer < PMC
>
> This model says, you can become committer and access source code. But
> when it comes to decisions only the PMC have binding votes. It doesn't
> mean a committer can't influence the project; it just says only PMC
> can really block things.
>
> I like this model more. The reason is, in future we might vote in new
> committers who we might not know so well. It might turn out they are
> not so nice as they looked in the beginning. I don't want to give out
> binding votes to people I don't know so well.
>
> In my opinion, option 2 gives us the chance to include people quicker.
> Option 1 would force us to look a long term to every individual and
> vote later.
>
> There are different views on both models. Of course we can decide on
> something else too. But for now I would love to see model 2 at Onami.
>
> Are there any other thoughts?
>
> What happens when graduating?
>
> When we graduate we need to form a PMC. it is also the time to
> "remove" persons from the project, when they are not longer interested
> and don't want to commit.
>
> We should look at our community and identify people who really drive
> Onami. Maybe we can simply ask our members if they want to join the
> PMC or not. I believe in our case folks who haven't got much time to
> help here, may want to stay committer and join as PMC later. Thats
> perfectly ok.
>
> Once we formed the PMC we should nominate potential chairs. A chair is
> the guy from the PMC who sends reports to the board. He doesn't have
> "super extra powers" inside the project. But actually I think the
> chair is a pretty respected person.
>
> The first I ask now is which model we would like to take.
>
> Please ask me anything you want to know on voting, pmc roles etc - now
> is the time and I have a couple of links.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de