You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> on 2006/05/03 10:30:10 UTC
[Vote] remove active/inactive concept
David Crossley wrote:
> The proposal addresses two separate issues:
>
> ------------------------
> A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
>
> So this will mean that the people who have binding votes
> are "PMC Members".
>
> Also change the definitions of "Unanimous consensus" and
> "2/3 majority" to stop saying "All voters with binding
> votes must vote" and instead refer to number of "votes cast".
>
> Add a note about the chair deciding whether a quorum
> has been reached.
>
> Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
> as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
> People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
> see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
> to the discussion or to cast a vote.
>
> PMC members can still declare themselves "emeritus"
> if they so choose. Nicola Ken was an example. In such
> a case we notify the board and remove them from the
> list of PMC members.
>
> ------------------------
> B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
>
> There will be one list. The PMC members will be marked.
> Emeritus PMC members will be marked in a different way.
>
> There will be explanations of how to see who is "active"
> for those who care, e.g. search the mail archives; look
> at changes.html; etc.
>
> Add a note to explain the evolution of Forrest to
> a top-level project and hence the introduction of
> a PMC which did not include the old absent committers.
>
> ------------------------
Anyone can vote. It is good to hear the opinions of developers.
As usual the binding votes are those of PMC members.
Using "Consensus approval":
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
The vote will run for the normal one week and so finish at
midnight UTC on 2005-05-10
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?year=2006&month=05&day=11
Please vote on these two proposals:
A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
-David
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Johannes Schaefer <jo...@uidesign.de>.
I'm back--late?
I'm +0 on both.
I don't dare a +1 since I once removed myself from the active
list and David put me back there:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=112372739418058&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=112369220218443&w=2
I'm glad and proud to be part of Forrest!
Johannes
David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>> The proposal addresses two separate issues:
>>
>> ------------------------
>> A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
+0
>> So this will mean that the people who have binding votes
>> are "PMC Members".
>>
>> Also change the definitions of "Unanimous consensus" and
>> "2/3 majority" to stop saying "All voters with binding
>> votes must vote" and instead refer to number of "votes cast".
>>
>> Add a note about the chair deciding whether a quorum
>> has been reached.
>>
>> Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
>> as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
>> People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
>> see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
>> to the discussion or to cast a vote.
>>
>> PMC members can still declare themselves "emeritus"
>> if they so choose. Nicola Ken was an example. In such
>> a case we notify the board and remove them from the
>> list of PMC members.
>>
>> ------------------------
>> B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
+0
>>
>> There will be one list. The PMC members will be marked.
>> Emeritus PMC members will be marked in a different way.
>>
>> There will be explanations of how to see who is "active"
>> for those who care, e.g. search the mail archives; look
>> at changes.html; etc.
>>
>> Add a note to explain the evolution of Forrest to
>> a top-level project and hence the introduction of
>> a PMC which did not include the old absent committers.
>>
>> ------------------------
>
> Anyone can vote. It is good to hear the opinions of developers.
> As usual the binding votes are those of PMC members.
> Using "Consensus approval":
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
> The vote will run for the normal one week and so finish at
> midnight UTC on 2005-05-10
> http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?year=2006&month=05&day=11
>
> Please vote on these two proposals:
>
> A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
>
> B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
>
> -David
>
--
User Interface Design GmbH
Teinacher Str. 38, 71634 Ludwigsburg
Fon: +49-7141-37700-0
Fax: +49-7141-37700-99
Email: jschaefer@uidesign.de
Internet: www.uidesign.de
Geschäftsstellen:
Teinacher Str. 38, 71634 Ludwigsburg
Lehrer-Götz-Weg 11, 81825 München
Friedrichsring 46, 68161 Mannheim
Buch "User Interface Tuning" von Joachim Machate & Michael Burmester
www.user-interface-tuning.de
Attraktivität von interaktiven Produkten messen mit
www.attrakdiff.de
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El mié, 03-05-2006 a las 18:32 +1000, David Crossley escribió:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> > Please vote on these two proposals:
> >
> > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
+1
> > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
+1
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Cyriaque Dupoirieux <Cy...@pcotech.fr>.
le 03/05/2006 10:45 Ross Gardler a écrit :
> David Crossley wrote:
>> David Crossley wrote:
>>
>>> Please vote on these two proposals:
>>>
>>> A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
>
> +1
+1
>
>>> B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
>
> +1
+1,
Cyriaque,
>
> Ross
>
>
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>
>>Please vote on these two proposals:
>>
>>A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
+1
>>B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
+1
Ross
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
>
> Please vote on these two proposals:
>
> A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
+1
> B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
+1
-David
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On 5/3/06, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > The proposal addresses two separate issues:
> >
> > ------------------------
> > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
> >
> > So this will mean that the people who have binding votes
> > are "PMC Members".
> >
> > Also change the definitions of "Unanimous consensus" and
> > "2/3 majority" to stop saying "All voters with binding
> > votes must vote" and instead refer to number of "votes cast".
> >
> > Add a note about the chair deciding whether a quorum
> > has been reached.
> >
> > Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
> > as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
> > People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
> > see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
> > to the discussion or to cast a vote.
> >
> > PMC members can still declare themselves "emeritus"
> > if they so choose. Nicola Ken was an example. In such
> > a case we notify the board and remove them from the
> > list of PMC members.
> >
> > ------------------------
> > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
> >
> > There will be one list. The PMC members will be marked.
> > Emeritus PMC members will be marked in a different way.
> >
> > There will be explanations of how to see who is "active"
> > for those who care, e.g. search the mail archives; look
> > at changes.html; etc.
> >
> > Add a note to explain the evolution of Forrest to
> > a top-level project and hence the introduction of
> > a PMC which did not include the old absent committers.
> >
> > ------------------------
>
> Anyone can vote. It is good to hear the opinions of developers.
> As usual the binding votes are those of PMC members.
> Using "Consensus approval":
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
> The vote will run for the normal one week and so finish at
> midnight UTC on 2005-05-10
> http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?year=2006&month=05&day=11
>
> Please vote on these two proposals:
>
> A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
+1
> B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
+1
--tim
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El vie, 12-05-2006 a las 09:15 +0100, Ross Gardler escribió:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> >
> >>A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
> >>
> >>B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
> >
> >
> > The vote period has finished, so here is the summary.
> >
> > There are 12 people listed on our PMC.
> > There were 8 +1 votes (including one non-binding)
> > and no -1 votes.
> >
> > I will take on the job of following through
> > to update the "guidelines" and "who" pages.
>
> David thank you for taking this to a conclusion.
>
> Ross
Yes, thank you very much.
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>
>>A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
>>
>>B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
>
>
> The vote period has finished, so here is the summary.
>
> There are 12 people listed on our PMC.
> There were 8 +1 votes (including one non-binding)
> and no -1 votes.
>
> I will take on the job of following through
> to update the "guidelines" and "who" pages.
David thank you for taking this to a conclusion.
Ross
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
>
> A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
>
> B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
The vote period has finished, so here is the summary.
There are 12 people listed on our PMC.
There were 8 +1 votes (including one non-binding)
and no -1 votes.
I will take on the job of following through
to update the "guidelines" and "who" pages.
-David
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Ferdinand Soethe <fe...@apache.org>.
> Please vote on these two proposals:
> A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
+1
> B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
+1
--
Ferdinand Soethe
RE: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by "Gav...." <br...@brightontown.com.au>.
Thanks Everyone for your detailed explanations.
They have helped clarify a few things for me,
Importantly some of the clarifications have
Made me see more about 'The Apache Way' and
I understand this now more than ever.
I am sure the new Docs will help clarify things
More for others so these questions need not be
Asked again. Sorry for the late entry.
A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
+1 (non-binding)
>
> Does your -1 still stand, after the explanations from
> me and other PMC members? You would need to summarise
> the reasons.
>
> -David
>
I reverse that decision, thanks.
B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
+1 (non-binding)
Gav...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2006 4:08 PM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
>
> Gav.... wrote:
> > This vote mentions both PMC Members and Committers as though they
> > Are separate entities.
>
> I cannot see where. Part B was just talking about
> the rearrangement of the who.html part to get rid
> of the unworkable "active" distinction regarding
> committers. Part A is the main vote.
>
> > Please remind me, I thought it was decided
> > (unanimously amongst those present) that there was no longer a
> > Distinction , you can not be a committer without being also a
> > PMC Member. I did query the statement in /guidelines.html which
> > Reads :-
> >
> > " ... However, there may be extraordinary cases where we want limited
> > work-related commit access (not also a PMC member)... "
> >
> > IIRC the reply was that this is no longer the case.
>
> You asked two slightly different questions in
> the above paragraphs. I will try to answer them both
> separately.
>
> "Extraordinary" was intended to leave a mechanism for
> something else to happen. See the Proposal thread
> and the mention of GSoC for example.
>
> We always want new committers to also be PMC members.
> Otherwise they do not have a binding vote and so we
> will create classes of committers. We don't want that.
> However, it is up to them. When we invite a new committer
> we do let them choose not to be on the PMC, though we
> do not encourage that. I will try to enhance
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#elect
>
> > If this stands then there is more that needs doing to clarify this new
> > Stance in electing Devs to become PMC Members (becoming committers as
> > A consequence and vice-versa).
>
> Primarily they are elected as a Committer
> and we also want them to be a PMC member.
>
> However that is not the subject of this vote.
> That has been clarified many times in the past
> and i am concerned that it is being raised again.
> We need better docs obviously and cannot expect
> new people to fully understand these issues.
>
> > Such as :-
> >
> > Update the Meritocracy of Roles and Responsibilities to remove
> > Committer as though it was a separate role from PMC Member.
> >
> > Where it is sometimes mentioned 'PMC Member' and sometimes
> > Mentioned 'Committer' needs to be decided if using just
> > One of these terms throughout the documentation to avoid
> > Confusion.
>
> No need. It *is* a separate role.
>
> For example, Stefano is still a committer but is
> not a PMC member because he was not around when
> the project gained a PMC. We would be delighted
> if any of those old people came back to participate
> and commit again. We would probably ask them to become
> a PMC member.
>
> Not removing committers when they seem to be inactive
> is very important. They can then fix a bug at any
> time and not be held up by the patch process.
> We trusted them before, and we trust them still.
>
> I can see what you mean about using the terms
> correctly. "Committer" is probably the term that
> should be used most of the time. Use "PMC member"
> when it comes to issues about project management.
>
> > More ...
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Crossley
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2006 11:27 AM
> > > To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
> > >
> > > Reminder that there is about 24 hours remaining
> > > for this vote.
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> > > David Crossley wrote:
> > > > David Crossley wrote:
> > > > > The proposal addresses two separate issues:
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
> > > > >
> > > > > So this will mean that the people who have binding votes
> > > > > are "PMC Members".
> > > > >
> > > > > Also change the definitions of "Unanimous consensus" and
> > > > > "2/3 majority" to stop saying "All voters with binding
> > > > > votes must vote" and instead refer to number of "votes cast".
> >
> > Hmm, are you sure you mean 'Unanimous Consensus' to be included
> > Here?
>
> Yes. See the discussion in the proposal leading
> up to the vote. "Unanimous Consensus" is impossible
> to achieve if it applies to "all PMC members".
>
> > What about important decisions such as electing a new PMC Member
> > Or even more importantly removing a PMC Member - you are saying
> > That if at the time say only 4 PMC Members are currently active,
> > Then only these 4 PMC members need vote on such an important
> > Decision? It's not a likely scenario or the project would be in
> > Dire Straits but I'm emphasising my point.
>
> Yes. For most important situations "Consensus approval"
> is used: At least 3 +1 and no -1 votes.
>
> See the next note about quorum. If the chair thinks
> that there is too much lack of interest, then they
> will stop or extend the vote.
>
> You are correct. If this situation occurs too often
> then the chair will be reporting to the board that
> the project is not healthy.
>
> > > > > Add a note about the chair deciding whether a quorum
> > > > > has been reached.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
> > > > > as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
> > > > > People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
> > > > > see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
> > > > > to the discussion or to cast a vote.
> >
> > So are you removing the current policy of 'automatic removal
> > If inactive after 6 months' ?
>
> Yes. See the Proposal for the reasons.
> "Activity" is impossible to enforce.
>
> > I have to be careful in what I say here, it will more than likely
> > Show my misinterpretation, then again it is good so you guys
> > Will correct it for me.
>
> Thanks for being brave and speaking your mind.
>
> > Devs are expected to attain a certain level of lets say
> > 'Achievement' within the project, in terms of contributions
> > Which could be documentation (which is highly regarded), in
> > Terms of code (the blood of the project), or in terms of
> > Activity in the discussion lists either helping new users
> > Or suggesting new ways etc etc.
>
> Community is the blood actually, code will be
> a consequence.
>
> > This is expected to be kept up for quite some time so that
> > PMC Members may then notice and discuss possible reasons
> > For them to be included in the PMC.
> > Lets face it, someone may be the bees knees with coding, contribute
> > fantastically and regularly for 6 months or so - and then nothing.
>
> Correct.
>
> > So will not even get to the stage of being discussed on the
> > PMC list.
>
> Yes they will. We might decide to let them go on
> for a bit longer and we would propose them again later.
>
> > In other words, PMC Members have shown outstanding
> > Abilities in whatever contributions and have maintained this
> > Consistently over a long period of time in order to be
> > Recognised and eventually voted in. Of course you already
> > Know all this; I'm getting to the point...
> >
> > Recapping what it states on the who.html page:-
> >
> > " ... The Forrest Project operates on a meritocracy: the more you do,
> the
> > more responsibility you will obtain. This page lists all of the people
> who
> > have gone the extra mile and are Committers ... "
> >
> > Ok, the point? Can I repeat a part of this vote proposal:-
> >
> > " Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
> > as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
> > People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
> > see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
> > to the discussion or to cast a vote. "
> >
> > So, I am confused and concerned, someone makes all that effort to
> eventually
> > Become PMC Member whom you voted in BECAUSE OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS AND
> > EFFORT, then you say basically you don't care how much or how little
> they do
> > They can stay PMC Members until they themselves decide whether or not
> they
> > want to continue. If I misunderstood all of this and the 6 month rule
> still
> > Applies, please clarify for me, thanks. In the meantime, my vote on this
> > Section is based on what I understand so far.
>
> We trust these people. They demonstrated to the rest
> of the project that they are committed. They have
> demonstrated they can work in a collaborative way.
> We are pleased with whatever level of work that they
> can manage. We don't want to put any performance
> pressure onto them. We value their opinion whenever
> they speak up.
>
> Yes the six month thing has gone.
>
> > > > > PMC members can still declare themselves "emeritus"
> > > > > if they so choose. Nicola Ken was an example. In such
> > > > > a case we notify the board and remove them from the
> > > > > list of PMC members.
> >
> > See above, and to add, a Project needs continually active PMC members
> > Who can commit and apply time regularly - Once a month say I would
> > Consider minimum to be ok.
>
> Please see the Proposal and prior discussion.
> It is impossible to enforce that. This is one
> reason that we ended up here.
>
> > Going back to the flip-side again, would you
> > Vote someone in a PMC Member who contributed once in a while when they
> > feel like it ?
>
> I, for one, would not.
>
> > Important decisions (i.e. that need Unanimous Consensus) need to be done
> > By ALL PMC Members, holidays and normal delays accounted for,
>
> This is impossible to achieve.
>
> > if a PMC
> > Member can not be bothered to vote on something, then they surely have
> lost
> > Interest in the project. You can't have PMC Members waltzing in and out
> of
> > The project whenever they feel like, They
> > Have responsilities and should be made to uphold those in the interests
> of
> > The community and project as a whole. Don't be soft on inactive PMC
> Members,
> > They got there by shear hard work and dedication of which they should be
> > Extremely proud and glowing in the achievement (oh how I am going to
> regret
> > Re-visiting this post in the archives) to which they have attained, but
> this
> > Must/should(?) continue at an acceptable rate.
>
> If we put that sort of pressure on, then people will
> run away or never come. One would hope that people
> do act as you say but we cannot force them.
>
> > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
> > > > >
> > > > > There will be one list. The PMC members will be marked.
> > > > > Emeritus PMC members will be marked in a different way.
> > > > >
> > > > > There will be explanations of how to see who is "active"
> > > > > for those who care, e.g. search the mail archives; look
> > > > > at changes.html; etc.
> >
> > Hmm, yes Changes.html, not changed in a while has it.
>
> That is why i am pushing so hard on FOR-865. If there
> was a level above Blocker, then i would put it there.
>
> > > > > Add a note to explain the evolution of Forrest to
> > > > > a top-level project and hence the introduction of
> > > > > a PMC which did not include the old absent committers.
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Anyone can vote. It is good to hear the opinions of developers.
> >
> > You sure about that :)
>
> Yes.
>
> Next time please raise the issues as soon as possible,
> preferably during the Proposal leading up to the vote.
> But yes, never too late. If you must, then do it during
> the vote. However doing it at the last minute does
> not give people sufficient time to challenge you, or
> perhaps your opinions might cause them to change theirs.
>
> > > > As usual the binding votes are those of PMC members.
> > > > Using "Consensus approval":
> > > > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
> > > > The vote will run for the normal one week and so finish at
> > > > midnight UTC on 2005-05-10
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?year=2006&month=05&
> > > day=11
> > > >
> > > > Please vote on these two proposals:
> > > >
> > > > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
> >
> > -1 (non-binding)
>
> Does your -1 still stand, after the explanations from
> me and other PMC members? You would need to summarise
> the reasons.
>
> -David
>
> > > > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
> >
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Gav...
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/336 - Release Date: 10/05/2006
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Gav.... wrote:
> This vote mentions both PMC Members and Committers as though they
> Are separate entities.
I cannot see where. Part B was just talking about
the rearrangement of the who.html part to get rid
of the unworkable "active" distinction regarding
committers. Part A is the main vote.
> Please remind me, I thought it was decided
> (unanimously amongst those present) that there was no longer a
> Distinction , you can not be a committer without being also a
> PMC Member. I did query the statement in /guidelines.html which
> Reads :-
>
> " ... However, there may be extraordinary cases where we want limited
> work-related commit access (not also a PMC member)... "
>
> IIRC the reply was that this is no longer the case.
You asked two slightly different questions in
the above paragraphs. I will try to answer them both
separately.
"Extraordinary" was intended to leave a mechanism for
something else to happen. See the Proposal thread
and the mention of GSoC for example.
We always want new committers to also be PMC members.
Otherwise they do not have a binding vote and so we
will create classes of committers. We don't want that.
However, it is up to them. When we invite a new committer
we do let them choose not to be on the PMC, though we
do not encourage that. I will try to enhance
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#elect
> If this stands then there is more that needs doing to clarify this new
> Stance in electing Devs to become PMC Members (becoming committers as
> A consequence and vice-versa).
Primarily they are elected as a Committer
and we also want them to be a PMC member.
However that is not the subject of this vote.
That has been clarified many times in the past
and i am concerned that it is being raised again.
We need better docs obviously and cannot expect
new people to fully understand these issues.
> Such as :-
>
> Update the Meritocracy of Roles and Responsibilities to remove
> Committer as though it was a separate role from PMC Member.
>
> Where it is sometimes mentioned 'PMC Member' and sometimes
> Mentioned 'Committer' needs to be decided if using just
> One of these terms throughout the documentation to avoid
> Confusion.
No need. It *is* a separate role.
For example, Stefano is still a committer but is
not a PMC member because he was not around when
the project gained a PMC. We would be delighted
if any of those old people came back to participate
and commit again. We would probably ask them to become
a PMC member.
Not removing committers when they seem to be inactive
is very important. They can then fix a bug at any
time and not be held up by the patch process.
We trusted them before, and we trust them still.
I can see what you mean about using the terms
correctly. "Committer" is probably the term that
should be used most of the time. Use "PMC member"
when it comes to issues about project management.
> More ...
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Crossley
> > Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2006 11:27 AM
> > To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
> >
> > Reminder that there is about 24 hours remaining
> > for this vote.
> >
> > -David
> >
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > > David Crossley wrote:
> > > > The proposal addresses two separate issues:
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
> > > >
> > > > So this will mean that the people who have binding votes
> > > > are "PMC Members".
> > > >
> > > > Also change the definitions of "Unanimous consensus" and
> > > > "2/3 majority" to stop saying "All voters with binding
> > > > votes must vote" and instead refer to number of "votes cast".
>
> Hmm, are you sure you mean 'Unanimous Consensus' to be included
> Here?
Yes. See the discussion in the proposal leading
up to the vote. "Unanimous Consensus" is impossible
to achieve if it applies to "all PMC members".
> What about important decisions such as electing a new PMC Member
> Or even more importantly removing a PMC Member - you are saying
> That if at the time say only 4 PMC Members are currently active,
> Then only these 4 PMC members need vote on such an important
> Decision? It's not a likely scenario or the project would be in
> Dire Straits but I'm emphasising my point.
Yes. For most important situations "Consensus approval"
is used: At least 3 +1 and no -1 votes.
See the next note about quorum. If the chair thinks
that there is too much lack of interest, then they
will stop or extend the vote.
You are correct. If this situation occurs too often
then the chair will be reporting to the board that
the project is not healthy.
> > > > Add a note about the chair deciding whether a quorum
> > > > has been reached.
> > > >
> > > > Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
> > > > as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
> > > > People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
> > > > see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
> > > > to the discussion or to cast a vote.
>
> So are you removing the current policy of 'automatic removal
> If inactive after 6 months' ?
Yes. See the Proposal for the reasons.
"Activity" is impossible to enforce.
> I have to be careful in what I say here, it will more than likely
> Show my misinterpretation, then again it is good so you guys
> Will correct it for me.
Thanks for being brave and speaking your mind.
> Devs are expected to attain a certain level of lets say
> 'Achievement' within the project, in terms of contributions
> Which could be documentation (which is highly regarded), in
> Terms of code (the blood of the project), or in terms of
> Activity in the discussion lists either helping new users
> Or suggesting new ways etc etc.
Community is the blood actually, code will be
a consequence.
> This is expected to be kept up for quite some time so that
> PMC Members may then notice and discuss possible reasons
> For them to be included in the PMC.
> Lets face it, someone may be the bees knees with coding, contribute
> fantastically and regularly for 6 months or so - and then nothing.
Correct.
> So will not even get to the stage of being discussed on the
> PMC list.
Yes they will. We might decide to let them go on
for a bit longer and we would propose them again later.
> In other words, PMC Members have shown outstanding
> Abilities in whatever contributions and have maintained this
> Consistently over a long period of time in order to be
> Recognised and eventually voted in. Of course you already
> Know all this; I'm getting to the point...
>
> Recapping what it states on the who.html page:-
>
> " ... The Forrest Project operates on a meritocracy: the more you do, the
> more responsibility you will obtain. This page lists all of the people who
> have gone the extra mile and are Committers ... "
>
> Ok, the point? Can I repeat a part of this vote proposal:-
>
> " Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
> as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
> People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
> see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
> to the discussion or to cast a vote. "
>
> So, I am confused and concerned, someone makes all that effort to eventually
> Become PMC Member whom you voted in BECAUSE OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS AND
> EFFORT, then you say basically you don't care how much or how little they do
> They can stay PMC Members until they themselves decide whether or not they
> want to continue. If I misunderstood all of this and the 6 month rule still
> Applies, please clarify for me, thanks. In the meantime, my vote on this
> Section is based on what I understand so far.
We trust these people. They demonstrated to the rest
of the project that they are committed. They have
demonstrated they can work in a collaborative way.
We are pleased with whatever level of work that they
can manage. We don't want to put any performance
pressure onto them. We value their opinion whenever
they speak up.
Yes the six month thing has gone.
> > > > PMC members can still declare themselves "emeritus"
> > > > if they so choose. Nicola Ken was an example. In such
> > > > a case we notify the board and remove them from the
> > > > list of PMC members.
>
> See above, and to add, a Project needs continually active PMC members
> Who can commit and apply time regularly - Once a month say I would
> Consider minimum to be ok.
Please see the Proposal and prior discussion.
It is impossible to enforce that. This is one
reason that we ended up here.
> Going back to the flip-side again, would you
> Vote someone in a PMC Member who contributed once in a while when they
> feel like it ?
I, for one, would not.
> Important decisions (i.e. that need Unanimous Consensus) need to be done
> By ALL PMC Members, holidays and normal delays accounted for,
This is impossible to achieve.
> if a PMC
> Member can not be bothered to vote on something, then they surely have lost
> Interest in the project. You can't have PMC Members waltzing in and out of
> The project whenever they feel like, They
> Have responsilities and should be made to uphold those in the interests of
> The community and project as a whole. Don't be soft on inactive PMC Members,
> They got there by shear hard work and dedication of which they should be
> Extremely proud and glowing in the achievement (oh how I am going to regret
> Re-visiting this post in the archives) to which they have attained, but this
> Must/should(?) continue at an acceptable rate.
If we put that sort of pressure on, then people will
run away or never come. One would hope that people
do act as you say but we cannot force them.
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
> > > >
> > > > There will be one list. The PMC members will be marked.
> > > > Emeritus PMC members will be marked in a different way.
> > > >
> > > > There will be explanations of how to see who is "active"
> > > > for those who care, e.g. search the mail archives; look
> > > > at changes.html; etc.
>
> Hmm, yes Changes.html, not changed in a while has it.
That is why i am pushing so hard on FOR-865. If there
was a level above Blocker, then i would put it there.
> > > > Add a note to explain the evolution of Forrest to
> > > > a top-level project and hence the introduction of
> > > > a PMC which did not include the old absent committers.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------
> > >
> > > Anyone can vote. It is good to hear the opinions of developers.
>
> You sure about that :)
Yes.
Next time please raise the issues as soon as possible,
preferably during the Proposal leading up to the vote.
But yes, never too late. If you must, then do it during
the vote. However doing it at the last minute does
not give people sufficient time to challenge you, or
perhaps your opinions might cause them to change theirs.
> > > As usual the binding votes are those of PMC members.
> > > Using "Consensus approval":
> > > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
> > > The vote will run for the normal one week and so finish at
> > > midnight UTC on 2005-05-10
> > >
> > http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?year=2006&month=05&
> > day=11
> > >
> > > Please vote on these two proposals:
> > >
> > > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
>
> -1 (non-binding)
Does your -1 still stand, after the explanations from
me and other PMC members? You would need to summarise
the reasons.
-David
> > > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Gav...
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Ferdinand Soethe <fe...@apache.org>.
Gav.... wrote:
> This vote mentions both PMC Members and Committers as though they
> Are separate entities. Please remind me, I thought it was decided
> (unanimously amongst those present) that there was no longer a
> Distinction
As far as I recall David also mentioned that there are some historic
cases of people being one but not the other so that we could not
easily remove that distinction.
--
Ferdinand Soethe
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
>
> Gav, i can see why confusion arises. ASF projects are
> each potentionally different. Some have committers
> and then after while invite them to join the PMC.
> Other projects, like Forrest, encourage all committers
> to be PMC members.
I searched for information to clarify the operation
of PMCs. Apart from the links that we have already
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#pmc
and the subsequent links at how-it-works.html#pmc
i found this pearler by Roy Fielding 22 Nov 2003:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200311.mbox/%3C7025D8A1-1D0F-11D8-8AF4-000393753936@apache.org%3E
The whole thread is good, but Roy's initial message
is very useful.
-David
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Gav.... wrote:
> >
> >Such as :-
> >
> >Update the Meritocracy of Roles and Responsibilities to remove
> >Committer as though it was a separate role from PMC Member.
> >
> >Where it is sometimes mentioned 'PMC Member' and sometimes
> >Mentioned 'Committer' needs to be decided if using just
> >One of these terms throughout the documentation to avoid
> >Confusion.
>
> The duties of a PMC member are different from those of a committer. Even
> if they are the same person, therefore the disinction is sometimes an
> important one.
Gav, i can see why confusion arises. ASF projects are
each potentionally different. Some have committers
and then after while invite them to join the PMC.
Other projects, like Forrest, encourage all committers
to be PMC members.
-David
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Gav.... wrote:
> This vote mentions both PMC Members and Committers as though they
> Are separate entities. Please remind me, I thought it was decided
> (unanimously amongst those present) that there was no longer a
> Distinction , you can not be a committer without being also a
> PMC Member. I did query the statement in /guidelines.html which
> Reads :-
>
> " ... However, there may be extraordinary cases where we want limited
> work-related commit access (not also a PMC member)... "
>
> IIRC the reply was that this is no longer the case.
That is still the case. It is possible that an individual requests that
they are not part of the PMC for personal reasons.
We also have the above sentence to allow us to have provision should an
"extraordinary case" emerge. But we have never had such a case.
> If this stands then there is more that needs doing to clarify this new
> Stance in electing Devs to become PMC Members (becoming committers as
> A consequence and vice-versa).
>
> Such as :-
>
> Update the Meritocracy of Roles and Responsibilities to remove
> Committer as though it was a separate role from PMC Member.
See above.
> Where it is sometimes mentioned 'PMC Member' and sometimes
> Mentioned 'Committer' needs to be decided if using just
> One of these terms throughout the documentation to avoid
> Confusion.
The duties of a PMC member are different from those of a committer. Even
if they are the same person, therefore the disinction is sometimes an
important one.
Ross
RE: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by "Gav...." <br...@brightontown.com.au>.
This vote mentions both PMC Members and Committers as though they
Are separate entities. Please remind me, I thought it was decided
(unanimously amongst those present) that there was no longer a
Distinction , you can not be a committer without being also a
PMC Member. I did query the statement in /guidelines.html which
Reads :-
" ... However, there may be extraordinary cases where we want limited
work-related commit access (not also a PMC member)... "
IIRC the reply was that this is no longer the case.
If this stands then there is more that needs doing to clarify this new
Stance in electing Devs to become PMC Members (becoming committers as
A consequence and vice-versa).
Such as :-
Update the Meritocracy of Roles and Responsibilities to remove
Committer as though it was a separate role from PMC Member.
Where it is sometimes mentioned 'PMC Member' and sometimes
Mentioned 'Committer' needs to be decided if using just
One of these terms throughout the documentation to avoid
Confusion.
More ...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2006 11:27 AM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
>
> Reminder that there is about 24 hours remaining
> for this vote.
>
> -David
>
> David Crossley wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > > The proposal addresses two separate issues:
> > >
> > > ------------------------
> > > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
> > >
> > > So this will mean that the people who have binding votes
> > > are "PMC Members".
> > >
> > > Also change the definitions of "Unanimous consensus" and
> > > "2/3 majority" to stop saying "All voters with binding
> > > votes must vote" and instead refer to number of "votes cast".
Hmm, are you sure you mean 'Unanimous Consensus' to be included
Here?
What about important decisions such as electing a new PMC Member
Or even more importantly removing a PMC Member - you are saying
That if at the time say only 4 PMC Members are currently active,
Then only these 4 PMC members need vote on such an important
Decision? It's not a likely scenario or the project would be in
Dire Straits but I'm emphasising my point.
> > >
> > > Add a note about the chair deciding whether a quorum
> > > has been reached.
> > >
> > > Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
> > > as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
> > > People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
> > > see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
> > > to the discussion or to cast a vote.
So are you removing the current policy of 'automatic removal
If inactive after 6 months' ?
I have to be careful in what I say here, it will more than likely
Show my misinterpretation, then again it is good so you guys
Will correct it for me.
Devs are expected to attain a certain level of lets say
'Achievement' within the project, in terms of contributions
Which could be documentation (which is highly regarded), in
Terms of code (the blood of the project), or in terms of
Activity in the discussion lists either helping new users
Or suggesting new ways etc etc.
This is expected to be kept up for quite some time so that
PMC Members may then notice and discuss possible reasons
For them to be included in the PMC.
Lets face it, someone may be the bees knees with coding, contribute
fantastically and regularly for 6 months or so - and then nothing.
So will not even get to the stage of being discussed on the
PMC list. In other words, PMC Members have shown outstanding
Abilities in whatever contributions and have maintained this
Consistently over a long period of time in order to be
Recognised and eventually voted in. Of course you already
Know all this; I'm getting to the point...
Recapping what it states on the who.html page:-
" ... The Forrest Project operates on a meritocracy: the more you do, the
more responsibility you will obtain. This page lists all of the people who
have gone the extra mile and are Committers ... "
Ok, the point? Can I repeat a part of this vote proposal:-
" Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
to the discussion or to cast a vote. "
So, I am confused and concerned, someone makes all that effort to eventually
Become PMC Member whom you voted in BECAUSE OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS AND
EFFORT, then you say basically you don't care how much or how little they do
They can stay PMC Members until they themselves decide whether or not they
want to continue. If I misunderstood all of this and the 6 month rule still
Applies, please clarify for me, thanks. In the meantime, my vote on this
Section is based on what I understand so far.
> > >
> > > PMC members can still declare themselves "emeritus"
> > > if they so choose. Nicola Ken was an example. In such
> > > a case we notify the board and remove them from the
> > > list of PMC members.
See above, and to add, a Project needs continually active PMC members
Who can commit and apply time regularly - Once a month say I would
Consider minimum to be ok. Going back to the flip-side again, would you
Vote someone in a PMC Member who contributed once in a while when they
feel like it ?
Important decisions (i.e. that need Unanimous Consensus) need to be done
By ALL PMC Members, holidays and normal delays accounted for, if a PMC
Member can not be bothered to vote on something, then they surely have lost
Interest in the project. You can't have PMC Members waltzing in and out of
The project whenever they feel like, They
Have responsilities and should be made to uphold those in the interests of
The community and project as a whole. Don't be soft on inactive PMC Members,
They got there by shear hard work and dedication of which they should be
Extremely proud and glowing in the achievement (oh how I am going to regret
Re-visiting this post in the archives) to which they have attained, but this
Must/should(?) continue at an acceptable rate.
> > >
> > > ------------------------
> > > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
> > >
> > > There will be one list. The PMC members will be marked.
> > > Emeritus PMC members will be marked in a different way.
> > >
> > > There will be explanations of how to see who is "active"
> > > for those who care, e.g. search the mail archives; look
> > > at changes.html; etc.
Hmm, yes Changes.html, not changed in a while has it.
> > >
> > > Add a note to explain the evolution of Forrest to
> > > a top-level project and hence the introduction of
> > > a PMC which did not include the old absent committers.
> > >
> > > ------------------------
> >
> > Anyone can vote. It is good to hear the opinions of developers.
You sure about that :)
> > As usual the binding votes are those of PMC members.
> > Using "Consensus approval":
> > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
> > The vote will run for the normal one week and so finish at
> > midnight UTC on 2005-05-10
> >
> http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?year=2006&month=05&
> day=11
> >
> > Please vote on these two proposals:
> >
> > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
-1 (non-binding)
> >
> > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
+1 (non-binding)
Gav...
> >
> > -David
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/335 - Release Date: 9/05/2006
Re: [Vote] remove active/inactive concept
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Reminder that there is about 24 hours remaining
for this vote.
-David
David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > The proposal addresses two separate issues:
> >
> > ------------------------
> > A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
> >
> > So this will mean that the people who have binding votes
> > are "PMC Members".
> >
> > Also change the definitions of "Unanimous consensus" and
> > "2/3 majority" to stop saying "All voters with binding
> > votes must vote" and instead refer to number of "votes cast".
> >
> > Add a note about the chair deciding whether a quorum
> > has been reached.
> >
> > Add a note to reinforce that PMC members can be as active
> > as they choose, with no pressure from the project.
> > People can be quiet and speak up occasionally when they
> > see a topic that motivates them enough to contribute
> > to the discussion or to cast a vote.
> >
> > PMC members can still declare themselves "emeritus"
> > if they so choose. Nicola Ken was an example. In such
> > a case we notify the board and remove them from the
> > list of PMC members.
> >
> > ------------------------
> > B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
> >
> > There will be one list. The PMC members will be marked.
> > Emeritus PMC members will be marked in a different way.
> >
> > There will be explanations of how to see who is "active"
> > for those who care, e.g. search the mail archives; look
> > at changes.html; etc.
> >
> > Add a note to explain the evolution of Forrest to
> > a top-level project and hence the introduction of
> > a PMC which did not include the old absent committers.
> >
> > ------------------------
>
> Anyone can vote. It is good to hear the opinions of developers.
> As usual the binding votes are those of PMC members.
> Using "Consensus approval":
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
> The vote will run for the normal one week and so finish at
> midnight UTC on 2005-05-10
> http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?year=2006&month=05&day=11
>
> Please vote on these two proposals:
>
> A) Remove each mention of "Active" from guidelines.html
>
> B) Remove the separation of "active" committers from who.html
>
> -David