You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org> on 2011/09/30 03:09:11 UTC
[DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show up at the PPMC, etc.
A question was raised at the PPMC whether that practice should be continued.
One alternative would be to invite people to be committers and to invite committers to become PPMC members separately.
Another alternative would be to decide on each individual consideration, whether to invite as committer or as committer plus PPMC.
This discussion is to find out what the sentiments in the ooo-dev community are on this subject. It is also a way to learn what your questions are and endeavor to answer them.
- Dennis
SOME CONTEXT
The initial committers, those who were signed up on the original podling proposal, are automatically grandfathered into the project as committers and PPMC members. There are still some of those who have not shown up, some have submitted iCLAs but not gone farther, some do not respond to follow-up e-mails etc. Although there was discussion here on ooo-dev about having an use-by date on the Initial Committer invitations, action has not been taken to offer a last-chance and a deadline at this point. (I think that has been my action; I have not given it any priority.)
MY PREFERENCE
Since, I am speaking first, here's my view.
My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors to be both committers and members of the PPMC. I have seen it recommended for Podlings and I see no reason to suddenly change. Also, I expect there will be some culling of the PPMC on graduation to a top-level project and a PMC.
I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever. There has been no injury or damage no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership in the PPMC.
The current practice exposes more contributors to the workings of the PPMC, and it also provides a way for contributors who are not exclusively focused on development to offer their contributions in yet another way. Part of the challenge of the incubator is to develop a sustainable activity for continuing renewal of participation in the face of contributor, committer, and PPMC member turnover. It is the initial PPMCs challenge to foster that and live it.
The way to develop a resilient, sustainable project, is to keep PPMC membership open to new committers for now.
That's one view. There are many more. What are they?
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org>.
On 09/29/2011 09:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show up at the PPMC, etc.
>
> A question was raised at the PPMC whether that practice should be continued.
>
> One alternative would be to invite people to be committers and to invite committers to become PPMC members separately.
>
> Another alternative would be to decide on each individual consideration, whether to invite as committer or as committer plus PPMC.
>
> This discussion is to find out what the sentiments in the ooo-dev community are on this subject. It is also a way to learn what your questions are and endeavor to answer them.
>
> - Dennis
>
> SOME CONTEXT
>
> The initial committers, those who were signed up on the original podling proposal, are automatically grandfathered into the project as committers and PPMC members. There are still some of those who have not shown up, some have submitted iCLAs but not gone farther, some do not respond to follow-up e-mails etc. Although there was discussion here on ooo-dev about having an use-by date on the Initial Committer invitations, action has not been taken to offer a last-chance and a deadline at this point. (I think that has been my action; I have not given it any priority.)
>
> MY PREFERENCE
>
> Since, I am speaking first, here's my view.
>
> My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors to be both committers and members of the PPMC. I have seen it recommended for Podlings and I see no reason to suddenly change. Also, I expect there will be some culling of the PPMC on graduation to a top-level project and a PMC.
>
> I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever. There has been no injury or damage no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership in the PPMC.
>
> The current practice exposes more contributors to the workings of the PPMC, and it also provides a way for contributors who are not exclusively focused on development to offer their contributions in yet another way. Part of the challenge of the incubator is to develop a sustainable activity for continuing renewal of participation in the face of contributor, committer, and PPMC member turnover. It is the initial PPMCs challenge to foster that and live it.
>
> The way to develop a resilient, sustainable project, is to keep PPMC membership open to new committers for now.
>
> That's one view. There are many more. What are they?
>
I think the current practice of offering committer and PPMC should
continue. People can decline PPMC if they do not wish to participate in
that.
I came here as one of the original PPMC. New to both Apache and OOo
development as a participant.
I DO think the PPMC carries additional responsibility. Not to come and
go, but be here every day, going through the lists, staying current,
commenting and voting when necessary.
I spend countless hours on this list looking for ways to contribute.
Mostly reading, sometimes commenting, and doing something when I can.
If the discussion is in an area I feel is better left to others , I stay
out of it. I think that will be the way most will be.
Best regards,
Carl
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 4:40 PM, "Rob Weir" <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> >
...
> > I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status.
If the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
> >
>
> The result of that will be that some PPMC members, like myself, will
> not vote to approve someone unless we believe they fulfill the
> criteria of both Committer and PMC member. The result will be some
> who might otherwise would have been elected as Committers, based on
> their narrow interest in a specific function, say admin, but who have
> no broader interest, will not be elected at all.
This is only true if consensus is that someone does not full both criteria.
If the consensus is that they do then the vote would pass. That is as it
should be.
Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member. I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>>>> with "actual current harm". It is called oversight.
>>>
>>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
>>>
>>
>> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set". I'm suggesting that we take
>> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
>> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
>> role(s) that are most appropriate. In some cases someone might become
>> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member. In other cases they
>> might become both at once. The decision should be made the PPMC, and
>> they should have the discretion to do this.
>>
>> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
>> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
>> a "closed rule set".
>
> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
>
The result of that will be that some PPMC members, like myself, will
not vote to approve someone unless we believe they fulfill the
criteria of both Committer and PMC member. The result will be some
who might otherwise would have been elected as Committers, based on
their narrow interest in a specific function, say admin, but who have
no broader interest, will not be elected at all. By requiring that
everyone be elected to both roles, you raise the bar on what is
required for anyone to become a committer.
> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC require certain parts of the community to report status periodically?
>
> Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of special cases where Committer status only is appropriate. For example and assuming that the User Forums choose to join this project, should we require that all Admins be made into Committers and PPMC members, or that we only need 3? Or something in between? (Leave aside the iCLA question which could be handled of Terms of Use.)
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If
> the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
>>
>> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more
> important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC
> member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate
> transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member
> directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a
> generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors
> filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC
> require certain parts of the community to report status periodically?
>>
>
> From a purely ASF point of view there are very few things that require PMC
> oversight. the following are the only ones that jump to mind:
>
> - release votes (which equates to IP due diligence)
Here is my concern with limiting the PPMC too soon. Having been through a release vote it is important to know that the (P)PMC members who vote are affirming that they have actually performed the appropriate tests - which means checking license headers and packaging. Fortunately RAT is available to help, but this is a big lift and I expect that for OOo it will take each PPMC voter at least a day to do this properly. Even on PPMCs with 7 or 8 active members getting the 3 +1s in a week is difficult.
I see no point limiting PPMC membership until we experience a release vote and cycle as a podling.
> - new committers/PMC members
>
> The project may define a few other areas, but that's up to the project.
Important for us all to keep in mind. Thanks!
Regards,
Dave
>
> Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> I had a few comments (I previously sent to another list) about PPMC vs.
> committer sets (i.e. either offering commit separately, or only in
> conjunction with PPMC membership):
>
> Note that making the distinction (or not) is strictly up to the project.
> There are plenty of Apache projects on each side of this equation.
>
> ...
>
> Fundamentally, committers are people who are trusted to work on the code
> directly. Note that in larger projects, there are sometimes social rules
> that determine which specific modules a committer is expected to work on;
> they usually work quite well once established. I.e. a committer on the file
> system technically could commit everywhere, but is expected (socially) to
> submit patches to other code modules for review.
>
> ...
>
> PMC members are responsible for voting in new committers and/or PMC
> members, and ensuring releases are done properly under Apache rules.
> Typically they do have a broader scope within the project, but not
> necessarily; there are plenty of PMC members who have only ever worked in
> one module of a larger project - but who have also tested, voted on, and run
> releases of the whole project. PMC members should also assist the PMC chair
> with creating board reports.
>
> Any committer can be a release manager, but only PMC members cast binding
> votes on confirming a software release itself.
>
> Personally, with such a large and diverse project, I think it would be
> useful to make the distinction between the two groups. There are plenty of
> people who would be happy to just be involved as a committer - probably
> plenty who would really only be interested in committing to certain areas.
>
> To answer a question elsethread:
>
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a
>> more important discussion is what parts of the project might require
>> direct PPMC member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and
>> having appropriate transparency into all parts to provide oversight.
>> Do we need a PPMC member directly administrating forums and wikis? Do
>> we need the PPMC to provide a generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of
>> committers and other contributors filling roles within the Forum or
>> Wiki administration? Should the PPMC require certain parts of the
>> community to report status periodically?
>>
>> Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of
>> special cases where Committer status only is appropriate. For example
>> and assuming that the User Forums choose to join this project, should
>> we require that all Admins be made into Committers and PPMC members,
>> or that we only need 3? Or something in between? (Leave aside the
>> iCLA question which could be handled of Terms of Use.)
>>
>
> Personally, I don't see that Forum staff necessarily need to be on the
> PPMC; they don't need to vote on releases, so it's not necessary. I would
> (hope) that some of the Forum staff (admins and possibly top moderators)
> would be invited to the PPMC because of their influence on the project and
> their clear history of helping.
>
> What's more important is that some members of the PPMC (either existing
> staff or just existing Apache PPMC members) have read-access to everything
> on the forums, so they could show oversight of what's happening there.
>
> I don't see that we need PPMC members to do any of the day-to-day work in
> the forums. Any major policy changes or the like in the forums would be
> subject to approval by the PPMC (although I don't expect that would ever be
> an issue). Someone (doesn't actually have to be a PPMC member) would need
> to provide a general report on the forum activity and call out if there are
> any issues in the quarterly report that the PPMC needs to provide to the
> Incubator(now) / to the Board(in the future).
>
> Make sense?
>
for me that makes a lot of sense
Juergen
>
> And iCLAs are strictly required of any committer or PPMC member. But I
> don't see that they'd be required of any forum users or admins simply
> because of their forum roles. Remember: working on the code that runs the
> forum does not necessarily require an iCLA/committer because that code is
> not (presumably) planned to ship in an Apache product. Although anyone
> working on code running on Apache machines would find it much easier if they
> had a committer account.
>
> - Shane
>
> P.S. Thanks Dennis!
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Oct 3, 2011 9:26 PM, "Shane Curcuru" <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> I had a few comments (I previously sent to another list) about PPMC vs.
> committer sets (i.e. either offering commit separately, or only in
> conjunction with PPMC membership):
>
> Note that making the distinction (or not) is strictly up to the project.
> There are plenty of Apache projects on each side of this equation.
>
> ...
>
> Fundamentally, committers are people who are trusted to work on the code
> directly. Note that in larger projects, there are sometimes social
> rules that determine which specific modules a committer is expected to
> work on; they usually work quite well once established. I.e. a
> committer on the file system technically could commit everywhere, but is
> expected (socially) to submit patches to other code modules for review.
>
> ...
>
> PMC members are responsible for voting in new committers and/or PMC
> members, and ensuring releases are done properly under Apache rules.
> Typically they do have a broader scope within the project, but not
> necessarily; there are plenty of PMC members who have only ever worked
> in one module of a larger project - but who have also tested, voted on,
> and run releases of the whole project. PMC members should also assist
> the PMC chair with creating board reports.
>
> Any committer can be a release manager, but only PMC members cast
> binding votes on confirming a software release itself.
>
> Personally, with such a large and diverse project, I think it would be
> useful to make the distinction between the two groups. There are plenty
> of people who would be happy to just be involved as a committer -
> probably plenty who would really only be interested in committing to
> certain areas.
>
> To answer a question elsethread:
>
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a
>> more important discussion is what parts of the project might require
>> direct PPMC member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and
>> having appropriate transparency into all parts to provide oversight.
>> Do we need a PPMC member directly administrating forums and wikis? Do
>> we need the PPMC to provide a generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of
>> committers and other contributors filling roles within the Forum or
>> Wiki administration? Should the PPMC require certain parts of the
>> community to report status periodically?
>>
>> Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of
>> special cases where Committer status only is appropriate. For example
>> and assuming that the User Forums choose to join this project, should
>> we require that all Admins be made into Committers and PPMC members,
>> or that we only need 3? Or something in between? (Leave aside the
>> iCLA question which could be handled of Terms of Use.)
>
> Personally, I don't see that Forum staff necessarily need to be on the
> PPMC; they don't need to vote on releases, so it's not necessary. I
> would (hope) that some of the Forum staff (admins and possibly top
> moderators) would be invited to the PPMC because of their influence on
> the project and their clear history of helping.
>
> What's more important is that some members of the PPMC (either existing
> staff or just existing Apache PPMC members) have read-access to
> everything on the forums, so they could show oversight of what's
> happening there.
>
> I don't see that we need PPMC members to do any of the day-to-day work
> in the forums. Any major policy changes or the like in the forums would
> be subject to approval by the PPMC (although I don't expect that would
> ever be an issue). Someone (doesn't actually have to be a PPMC member)
> would need to provide a general report on the forum activity and call
> out if there are any issues in the quarterly report that the PPMC needs
> to provide to the Incubator(now) / to the Board(in the future).
>
> Make sense?
>
> And iCLAs are strictly required of any committer or PPMC member. But I
> don't see that they'd be required of any forum users or admins simply
> because of their forum roles. Remember: working on the code that runs
> the forum does not necessarily require an iCLA/committer because that
> code is not (presumably) planned to ship in an Apache product. Although
> anyone working on code running on Apache machines would find it much
> easier if they had a committer account.
>
> - Shane
>
> P.S. Thanks Dennis!
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
I had a few comments (I previously sent to another list) about PPMC vs.
committer sets (i.e. either offering commit separately, or only in
conjunction with PPMC membership):
Note that making the distinction (or not) is strictly up to the project.
There are plenty of Apache projects on each side of this equation.
...
Fundamentally, committers are people who are trusted to work on the code
directly. Note that in larger projects, there are sometimes social
rules that determine which specific modules a committer is expected to
work on; they usually work quite well once established. I.e. a
committer on the file system technically could commit everywhere, but is
expected (socially) to submit patches to other code modules for review.
...
PMC members are responsible for voting in new committers and/or PMC
members, and ensuring releases are done properly under Apache rules.
Typically they do have a broader scope within the project, but not
necessarily; there are plenty of PMC members who have only ever worked
in one module of a larger project - but who have also tested, voted on,
and run releases of the whole project. PMC members should also assist
the PMC chair with creating board reports.
Any committer can be a release manager, but only PMC members cast
binding votes on confirming a software release itself.
Personally, with such a large and diverse project, I think it would be
useful to make the distinction between the two groups. There are plenty
of people who would be happy to just be involved as a committer -
probably plenty who would really only be interested in committing to
certain areas.
To answer a question elsethread:
Dave Fisher wrote:
> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a
> more important discussion is what parts of the project might require
> direct PPMC member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and
> having appropriate transparency into all parts to provide oversight.
> Do we need a PPMC member directly administrating forums and wikis? Do
> we need the PPMC to provide a generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of
> committers and other contributors filling roles within the Forum or
> Wiki administration? Should the PPMC require certain parts of the
> community to report status periodically?
>
> Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of
> special cases where Committer status only is appropriate. For example
> and assuming that the User Forums choose to join this project, should
> we require that all Admins be made into Committers and PPMC members,
> or that we only need 3? Or something in between? (Leave aside the
> iCLA question which could be handled of Terms of Use.)
Personally, I don't see that Forum staff necessarily need to be on the
PPMC; they don't need to vote on releases, so it's not necessary. I
would (hope) that some of the Forum staff (admins and possibly top
moderators) would be invited to the PPMC because of their influence on
the project and their clear history of helping.
What's more important is that some members of the PPMC (either existing
staff or just existing Apache PPMC members) have read-access to
everything on the forums, so they could show oversight of what's
happening there.
I don't see that we need PPMC members to do any of the day-to-day work
in the forums. Any major policy changes or the like in the forums would
be subject to approval by the PPMC (although I don't expect that would
ever be an issue). Someone (doesn't actually have to be a PPMC member)
would need to provide a general report on the forum activity and call
out if there are any issues in the quarterly report that the PPMC needs
to provide to the Incubator(now) / to the Board(in the future).
Make sense?
And iCLAs are strictly required of any committer or PPMC member. But I
don't see that they'd be required of any forum users or admins simply
because of their forum roles. Remember: working on the code that runs
the forum does not necessarily require an iCLA/committer because that
code is not (presumably) planned to ship in an Apache product. Although
anyone working on code running on Apache machines would find it much
easier if they had a committer account.
- Shane
P.S. Thanks Dennis!
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 30 September 2011 16:48, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If
>> the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
>>
>> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more
>> important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC
>> member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate
>> transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member
>> directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a
>> generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors
>> filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC
>> require certain parts of the community to report status periodically?
>>
>
> From a purely ASF point of view there are very few things that require PMC
> oversight. the following are the only ones that jump to mind:
>
> - release votes (which equates to IP due diligence)
> - new committers/PMC members
One more:
- board reports
Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
...
>
> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If
the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
>
> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more
important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC
member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate
transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member
directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a
generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors
filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC
require certain parts of the community to report status periodically?
>
>From a purely ASF point of view there are very few things that require PMC
oversight. the following are the only ones that jump to mind:
- release votes (which equates to IP due diligence)
- new committers/PMC members
The project may define a few other areas, but that's up to the project.
Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member. I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>>> with "actual current harm". It is called oversight.
>>
>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
>>
>
> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set". I'm suggesting that we take
> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
> role(s) that are most appropriate. In some cases someone might become
> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member. In other cases they
> might become both at once. The decision should be made the PPMC, and
> they should have the discretion to do this.
>
> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
> a "closed rule set".
I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC require certain parts of the community to report status periodically?
Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of special cases where Committer status only is appropriate. For example and assuming that the User Forums choose to join this project, should we require that all Admins be made into Committers and PPMC members, or that we only need 3? Or something in between? (Leave aside the iCLA question which could be handled of Terms of Use.)
Regards,
Dave
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:28, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have
>>> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
>>> into a "flat" leadership structure? Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
>>> reserved for us alone?
>>
>> Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
>> to be BoD, is not similar to a PMC. It is similar, in function, to
>> the Apache Board.
>>
>
> OK. I'll give you an apple then. Who approves your releases? The
> Engineering Steering Committee? How many members are there? Who
> approves Engineering Steering Committee members? Add those two
> committees together and what do you get? Anything close to 72
> members?
Why is this relevant, Rob?
S.
RE: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1 (using up my quota on this thread for 2011-10-01)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 16:06
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we
>> would still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the
>> status quo of not having such a policy.
>
> You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers
> joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a
> problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
>
> My sense is that the project is still in a formative stage and will
> need significant changes to the PMC before graduation - it has a
> number of PMC members who in a normal Apache project would not even
> be committers, for example. Once the dynamics of a fully functional
> project are evident I would expect to see a more complete rethink.
> The partial move of restricting admission to the PPMC now is
> counterintuitive if there is no current harm being done.
>
> S.
I'm inclined to go with Simon's reasoning on this issue. In other words,
leave the invitation to new committers as is -- with invitation to the
PPMC also.
We are still very much in the formative stage here at Apache, and,
without extended PPMC membership, we may actually miss extending
additional invitations to folks (only PPMC members can do this) who are
truly valuable based on a new member's involvement for one.
There are many items which can be passed by "lazy consensus". If PPMC
members choose NOT to involve themselves in these aspects, so what.
I see NO harm at all at continuing the current invitation process during
the podling process.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There is no such thing as coincidence."
-- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by David McKay <dm...@btconnect.com>.
That makes sense to me to.
Dave.
On 02/10/11 18:08, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> +1
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> Am 10/02/2011 01:06 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>>
>> On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>>>> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we
>>>> would still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the
>>>> status quo of not having such a policy.
>>>
>>> You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers
>>> joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a
>>> problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
>>>
>>> My sense is that the project is still in a formative stage and will
>>> need significant changes to the PMC before graduation - it has a
>>> number of PMC members who in a normal Apache project would not even
>>> be committers, for example. Once the dynamics of a fully functional
>>> project are evident I would expect to see a more complete rethink.
>>> The partial move of restricting admission to the PPMC now is
>>> counterintuitive if there is no current harm being done.
>>>
>>> S.
>>
>> I'm inclined to go with Simon's reasoning on this issue. In other words,
>> leave the invitation to new committers as is -- with invitation to the
>> PPMC also.
>>
>> We are still very much in the formative stage here at Apache, and,
>> without extended PPMC membership, we may actually miss extending
>> additional invitations to folks (only PPMC members can do this) who are
>> truly valuable based on a new member's involvement for one.
>>
>> There are many items which can be passed by "lazy consensus". If PPMC
>> members choose NOT to involve themselves in these aspects, so what.
>>
>> I see NO harm at all at continuing the current invitation process during
>> the podling process.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
+1
Marcus
Am 10/02/2011 01:06 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>
> On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>>> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we
>>> would still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the
>>> status quo of not having such a policy.
>>
>> You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers
>> joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a
>> problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
>>
>> My sense is that the project is still in a formative stage and will
>> need significant changes to the PMC before graduation - it has a
>> number of PMC members who in a normal Apache project would not even
>> be committers, for example. Once the dynamics of a fully functional
>> project are evident I would expect to see a more complete rethink.
>> The partial move of restricting admission to the PPMC now is
>> counterintuitive if there is no current harm being done.
>>
>> S.
>
> I'm inclined to go with Simon's reasoning on this issue. In other words,
> leave the invitation to new committers as is -- with invitation to the
> PPMC also.
>
> We are still very much in the formative stage here at Apache, and,
> without extended PPMC membership, we may actually miss extending
> additional invitations to folks (only PPMC members can do this) who are
> truly valuable based on a new member's involvement for one.
>
> There are many items which can be passed by "lazy consensus". If PPMC
> members choose NOT to involve themselves in these aspects, so what.
>
> I see NO harm at all at continuing the current invitation process during
> the podling process.
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we
>> would still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the
>> status quo of not having such a policy.
>
> You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers
> joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a
> problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
>
> My sense is that the project is still in a formative stage and will
> need significant changes to the PMC before graduation - it has a
> number of PMC members who in a normal Apache project would not even
> be committers, for example. Once the dynamics of a fully functional
> project are evident I would expect to see a more complete rethink.
> The partial move of restricting admission to the PPMC now is
> counterintuitive if there is no current harm being done.
>
> S.
I'm inclined to go with Simon's reasoning on this issue. In other words,
leave the invitation to new committers as is -- with invitation to the
PPMC also.
We are still very much in the formative stage here at Apache, and,
without extended PPMC membership, we may actually miss extending
additional invitations to folks (only PPMC members can do this) who are
truly valuable based on a new member's involvement for one.
There are many items which can be passed by "lazy consensus". If PPMC
members choose NOT to involve themselves in these aspects, so what.
I see NO harm at all at continuing the current invitation process during
the podling process.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There is no such thing as coincidence."
-- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>>> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we would
>>> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
>>> of not having such a policy.
>>
>> You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
>>
>
> That is a counter-factual question. That is not the status quo. We
> have no such rule. For example, we already have one committer who is
> not on the PPMC. I expect we'll have more unless a restrictive rule
> is imposed that requires that both roles be simultaneously assigned.
>
> The status quo is for a PPMC member to nominate a person and to
> specify what they are nominating the for. There is no further
> restriction. I'm not in favor of restricting this further. Are you?
>
Maybe this analogy will help. Suppose you go to work every day with
an umbrella, but for 40 straight days it doesn't rain. You never use
your umbrella in that period of time.
If a law was passed that said you could not carry an umbrella, would
that be a change? Or would you argue that the status quo had not
changed?
I'm not arguing in favor of rain. I'm just arguing that umbrellas are
sometimes useful, even if it has not rained in a while.
> -Rob
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we would
>> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
>> of not having such a policy.
>
> You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
>
That is a counter-factual question. That is not the status quo. We
have no such rule. For example, we already have one committer who is
not on the PPMC. I expect we'll have more unless a restrictive rule
is imposed that requires that both roles be simultaneously assigned.
The status quo is for a PPMC member to nominate a person and to
specify what they are nominating the for. There is no further
restriction. I'm not in favor of restricting this further. Are you?
-Rob
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we would
> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
> of not having such a policy.
You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
My sense is that the project is still in a formative stage and will need significant changes to the PMC before graduation - it has a number of PMC members who in a normal Apache project would not even be committers, for example. Once the dynamics of a fully functional project are evident I would expect to see a more complete rethink. The partial move of restricting admission to the PPMC now is counterintuitive if there is no current harm being done.
S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I agree let's not make it adversarial. But I would be interested to
>> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC,
>
> I said nothing of the kind, please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply asked why you felt the need for change. You have so far not answered my questions and each time I have repeated them have evaded them by raising orthogonal issues.
>
We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we would
still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
of not having such a policy.
Ross is arguing for adopting such a policy. I disagree with that
change. I think we should continue to take it case-by-case, at the
PPMC's discretion, assigning roles as we see appropriate. It may
continue to be the case that it is usually appropriate to have people
assigned both roles at once. But I see no reason to introduce a new
rule to force that decision, when we've never had such a rule before.
-Rob
> Given you agree there is no current harm, and given that the problem you appear to be addressing is arguably not one Apache expects to arise given The Apache Way, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation (at the earliest) to adjust this project's governance?
>
> S.
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Rob Weir wrote:
> I agree let's not make it adversarial. But I would be interested to
> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC,
I said nothing of the kind, please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply asked why you felt the need for change. You have so far not answered my questions and each time I have repeated them have evaded them by raising orthogonal issues.
Given you agree there is no current harm, and given that the problem you appear to be addressing is arguably not one Apache expects to arise given The Apache Way, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation (at the earliest) to adjust this project's governance?
S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> I agree let's not make it adversarial. But I would be interested to
> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC, but
> has not made a similar recommendation for TDF/LO.
Because there is no such thing as a PCM. The Engineering Steering
Committee has an advisory role.
And most of the time a good half of the dev/qa that join the weekly
call are not 'officially' member of the ESC.
There is no 'binding' vote... in fact there is no vote at all.
Decision are made by those who do, and
so far the role of ESC has more been one of coordination, in the sens
of sharing and communicating
what is happening rather than 'deciding'.
So really, who got what 'title' or what 'distinction' is very far from
the daily concern.
Note that there is not even the requirement to be a TFD member to be
on the ESC... not for that matter to have commit access.
And you asked: who approve 'release': well roughly the calendar
modulated by Bugzilla and QA volunteers.
Norbert
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> May I observe that this thread should be about what is right for AOOo. What
> others do and whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant here unless we
> are using it to inform our decision. Lets not have yet another "us" and
> "them" argument.
>
We've talked about other Apache projects, and what they do. It is a
fair point to talk about what other open source projects do as well.
Finding out what "is right for AOOo" is not something best done with
our eyes shut.
I agree let's not make it adversarial. But I would be interested to
know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC, but
has not made a similar recommendation for TDF/LO. If there is a good
answer, I'm sure it would be relevant to our discussions, since the
projects are otherwise very similar. In other words, is TDF/LO
governance a different solution to the same problem? Or a different
problem altogether? If the former, then what went wrong there that
leads Simon to make a different recommendation for AOOo?
-Rob
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 30, 2011 6:28 PM, "Rob Weir" <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have
>>>> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
>>>> into a "flat" leadership structure? Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
>>>> reserved for us alone?
>>>
>>> Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
>>> to be BoD, is not similar to a PMC. It is similar, in function, to
>>> the Apache Board.
>>>
>>
>> OK. I'll give you an apple then. Who approves your releases? The
>> Engineering Steering Committee? How many members are there? Who
>> approves Engineering Steering Committee members? Add those two
>> committees together and what do you get? Anything close to 72
>> members?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Norbert
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
May I observe that this thread should be about what is right for AOOo. What
others do and whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant here unless we
are using it to inform our decision. Lets not have yet another "us" and
"them" argument.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 6:28 PM, "Rob Weir" <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have
>>> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
>>> into a "flat" leadership structure? Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
>>> reserved for us alone?
>>
>> Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
>> to be BoD, is not similar to a PMC. It is similar, in function, to
>> the Apache Board.
>>
>
> OK. I'll give you an apple then. Who approves your releases? The
> Engineering Steering Committee? How many members are there? Who
> approves Engineering Steering Committee members? Add those two
> committees together and what do you get? Anything close to 72
> members?
>
> -Rob
>
>> Norbert
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have
>> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
>> into a "flat" leadership structure? Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
>> reserved for us alone?
>
> Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
> to be BoD, is not similar to a PMC. It is similar, in function, to
> the Apache Board.
>
OK. I'll give you an apple then. Who approves your releases? The
Engineering Steering Committee? How many members are there? Who
approves Engineering Steering Committee members? Add those two
committees together and what do you get? Anything close to 72
members?
-Rob
> Norbert
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have
> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
> into a "flat" leadership structure? Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
> reserved for us alone?
Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
to be BoD, is not similar to a PMC. It is similar, in function, to
the Apache Board.
Norbert
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:35, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>>
>
> I'd recommend rereading my response to Ross. Rory seems to get it.
> But I'm not really obligated to argue a point that I am not making,
> namely "actual current harm". I'm willing to concede that fact, as
> well as the fact that I have fire insurance even though my house is
> not currently on fire, or that I pack a lunch even though I'm not
> currently hungry, or that I try to steer the Podling toward
> reasonable, sustainable long term decision making processes, even
> though we have not graduated.
Given you agree there is no current harm, and given that the problem you appear to be addressing is arguably not one Apache expects to arise given The Apache Way, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation (at the earliest) to adjust the project's governance?
S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member. I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>>>> with "actual current harm". It is called oversight.
>>>
>>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
>>>
>>
>> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set". I'm suggesting that we take
>> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
>> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
>> role(s) that are most appropriate. In some cases someone might become
>> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member. In other cases they
>> might become both at once. The decision should be made the PPMC, and
>> they should have the discretion to do this.
>>
>> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
>> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
>> a "closed rule set".
>
> I was attempting to describe the YAGNI principle for you; that was not the subject of my question, which remains unanswered. I would welcome an answer to my question please.
>
I'd recommend rereading my response to Ross. Rory seems to get it.
But I'm not really obligated to argue a point that I am not making,
namely "actual current harm". I'm willing to concede that fact, as
well as the fact that I have fire insurance even though my house is
not currently on fire, or that I pack a lunch even though I'm not
currently hungry, or that I try to steer the Podling toward
reasonable, sustainable long term decision making processes, even
though we have not graduated.
BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have
you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
into a "flat" leadership structure? Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
reserved for us alone?
-Rob
> Thanks,
>
> S.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member. I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>>> with "actual current harm". It is called oversight.
>>
>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
>>
>
> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set". I'm suggesting that we take
> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
> role(s) that are most appropriate. In some cases someone might become
> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member. In other cases they
> might become both at once. The decision should be made the PPMC, and
> they should have the discretion to do this.
>
> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
> a "closed rule set".
I was attempting to describe the YAGNI principle for you; that was not the subject of my question, which remains unanswered. I would welcome an answer to my question please.
Thanks,
S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>>>
>>
>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member. I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>> with "actual current harm". It is called oversight.
>
> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
>
I am not suggesting a "closed rule set". I'm suggesting that we take
each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
role(s) that are most appropriate. In some cases someone might become
a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member. In other cases they
might become both at once. The decision should be made the PPMC, and
they should have the discretion to do this.
I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
a "closed rule set".
> Thanks
>
> S.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>>
>
> Simon, I'm a PPMC member. I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
> with "actual current harm". It is called oversight.
My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
Thanks
S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>
Simon, I'm a PPMC member. I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
with "actual current harm". It is called oversight.
-Rob
> S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:15:52 -0400
> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>><snip>
>
>> By my count we have 72 committers right now, almost all of them also
>> PPMC members. With the new IBMers coming on board, as well as
>> possibly forum admins/moderators/volunteers (at least according to one
>> draft proposal), we could shortly have 120+ committers/ppmc members.
>>
>> This is not just quantitatively different. This is qualitatively
>> different. It is no longer a committee. It doesn't work like a
>> committee. It doesn't think like a committee. It is not necessarily
>> a bad thing, but it is qualitatively a different thing. It is more
>> like a congress, where factions form and individual voices are less
>> heard. The voice of reason is less often heard in a "committee" of
>> 120 people. It doesn't cut through the noise.
>>
>
> Without wishing to engage in this discussion in any depth, I point out that the accepted wisdom is that the optimum size of a decision making body is between 6 and 12; our ancestors felt twelve to be optimum (hence the traditional jury size). My own experience is that about seven to nine is good, if one accepts a majority vote rather than unanimity.
>
I think the potential problem that Ross points out is that Apache PMCs
select their own members. They are not representatives in a formal
sense, they are not selected by the broader membership. So that could
hypothetically encourage stagnation of ideas, etc. There is a reason
why close inbreeding is discouraged in most cultures. One way to
avoid that is to increase the gene pool by having everyone be in the
PMC. But that has the potential to degrade the effectiveness of the
PMC's decision making progress.
The ideal, IMHO, is to have a PMC that is right-sized, and whose
members have the confidence of the overall project. A size large
enough to fulfill its responsibilities, but small enough so that every
member of the PMC can be fully informed on the issues it is deciding
on.
Gaining the the confidence of the overall project is the tricky part.
One way is to have the PMC be elected by the general project members.
But that isn't how Apache works. The PMC elects its own members, and
debates these votes in private. In theory, this is because we're a
meritocracy, not a democracy. Maybe one way to remedy this is to have
PMC votes and discussions take place on the public list, with prior
permission of the candidate? You could argue that since it is a
community-wide role, the input of the entire community would be valued
in making that decision.
-Rob
> --
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:15:52 -0400
Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
><snip>
> By my count we have 72 committers right now, almost all of them also
> PPMC members. With the new IBMers coming on board, as well as
> possibly forum admins/moderators/volunteers (at least according to one
> draft proposal), we could shortly have 120+ committers/ppmc members.
>
> This is not just quantitatively different. This is qualitatively
> different. It is no longer a committee. It doesn't work like a
> committee. It doesn't think like a committee. It is not necessarily
> a bad thing, but it is qualitatively a different thing. It is more
> like a congress, where factions form and individual voices are less
> heard. The voice of reason is less often heard in a "committee" of
> 120 people. It doesn't cut through the noise.
>
Without wishing to engage in this discussion in any depth, I point out that the accepted wisdom is that the optimum size of a decision making body is between 6 and 12; our ancestors felt twelve to be optimum (hence the traditional jury size). My own experience is that about seven to nine is good, if one accepts a majority vote rather than unanimity.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 03:04, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show up at the PPMC, etc.
>
> ...
>
>> Note specifically that a committer can have a narrow focus. But a
>> PMC member has broader responsibilities. I'd expect a committer to
>> have demonstrated competence in some area of the project that requires
>> committer access, such as coding, testing, doc, or admin work. I'd
>> expect a PMC member to additionally have a strong interest in the
>> overall direction of the project, and to have exhibited insight and
>> judgment that would be an asset to the oversight of the overall
>> project .
>>
>> The Podling Guide [2] also supports this view, when it says: "The
>> PPMC should take an active role in watching committers develop into
>> community participants, identify those who are participating at a
>> community level, not just a technical one, and approach them with an
>> offer of PPMC membership."
>
> This is an area where ASF projects differ from one another. Some
> projects prefer to have a separation, others prefer not to.
>
> In my experience a flatter organisational structure is generally
> better. However, on a project as large and diverse as OOo this may not
> be the case.
>
Do you know offhand what the largest Apache project is that uses such
a "flat" approach?
By my count we have 72 committers right now, almost all of them also
PPMC members. With the new IBMers coming on board, as well as
possibly forum admins/moderators/volunteers (at least according to one
draft proposal), we could shortly have 120+ committers/ppmc members.
This is not just quantitatively different. This is qualitatively
different. It is no longer a committee. It doesn't work like a
committee. It doesn't think like a committee. It is not necessarily
a bad thing, but it is qualitatively a different thing. It is more
like a congress, where factions form and individual voices are less
heard. The voice of reason is less often heard in a "committee" of
120 people. It doesn't cut through the noise.
Honestly, any sane organization that had a leadership committee of 120
people would quickly form a system of subcommittees to discuss and
make proposals, reach initial consensus among those most interested in
that issue, and then bring the consensus resolution back in plenary
for ratification. Is that what we're headed for? The PPMC Website
subcommittee, the PPMC release subcommittee, the PPMC community
subcommittee? I don't see how you avoid this if you try to scale this
up beyond anything that has ever been attempted at Apache.
Note also that Apache does the same thing with its Members. You
create legal, branding, communications, events, etc., essentially
subcommittees to deal with the impossibility of having day to day
oversight of a larger membership. And then you also have a Board of
Directors to oversee the overseers.
> The reason for "flatter is better" is that people tend to be more
> engaged when they feel more empowered. Once OOo graduates PMC members
> will have binding votes on everything committers may not have binding
> votes on everything (this is something that the PPMC needs to resolve
> nearer the time). By creating the separation of roles you are creating
> the potential for a hierarchy to emerge.
>
Who is more empowered, an active participant in a PMC of 25, or a
passive observer on a PMC of 150? If anything, a PMC filled with
passive bystanders, uninvolved in the oversight of the project, but
ready to bike-shed at a moment's notice on a dull day, reduces the
empowerment of those who are interested in community-wide oversight.
If someone has the inclination and interest in community-wide
concerns, then that is great, and we should be inviting them to become
a PMC member. I'm not saying we should never invite someone to be a
committer and PMC member at the same time. I'm just saying we
evaluate them for each role, and offer them the most appropriate
role(s) based on the contributions they've made and the interests they
may have had in community-wide concerns.
> Generally we find that people will not meddle with areas of the
> project they are not qualified to meddle in. It's kind of hard to do
> so anyway since a veto requires an alternative course of action that
> the community supports. If one isn't qualified to meddle how can one
> come up with a proposal that will be supported?
>
I don't buy that. It certainly has not matched what we've seen in
this podling. We wouldn't now be familiar with the term
"bike-shedding" if that were true.
>>> My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors to be both committers and members of the PPMC. I have seen it recommended for Podlings and I see no reason to suddenly change. Also, I expect there will be some culling of the PPMC on graduation to a top-level project and a PMC.
>>>
>>
>> I believe you have misread the recommendation in the Podling Guide.
>> If you read the complete paragraph, it is clearer.
>
> Never trust documentation in the ASF ;-)
>
> You will find many many people who do not agree with that paragraph
> but can't be bothered to change it (guilty ;-)
>
> I think Denis is demonstrating an understanding of the alternative view.
>
> Every year, just before the ASF Members meeting, we have the same
> discussion about what barriers should there be to people becoming
> members. Typically you will hear the oldest hands saying "minimal
> barriers, we need bodies" whilst the newer hands will say "some
> barriers, we need control".
>
> I myself went through that process. I was amazed when I was voted in
> as a member. I didn't think I'd done enough to deserve it. I watched
> and learned. I realised early was good, but thought there should be
> some barriers. Today, ten years on, I am of the "minimal barriers"
> camp.
>
> Now, ASF membership is different from OOo PMC membership. I'm not
> suggesting that you have to go this way. I'm saying that just because
> it is written doesn't mean it is the one true way.
>
>>> I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever. There has been no injury or damage no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership in the PPMC.
>>>
>
> The argument of "there is no harm" is exactly the argument that
> matters. There really is no harm in having all committers in the PMC.
> The decision making process respects the community as a whole. Should
> a member of the PMC be causing problems there are mechanisms for
> dealing with it (it is very, very rare).
>
> Conversely there is harm in not having a broad and varied PMC. There
> is increased opportunity for vested interests to take control. There
> are more rumours of backroom deals on the private list. There is a
> feeling of reduced transparencey etc. None of these things exist in
> the OOo podling, but when independent mentors like myself clear off
> will the community trust the remaining PMC members?
>
> Note, this decision is not an either/or. You can make it common
> practie to invite committers to the PMC but allow committer proposals
> to say "committer only" in specific cases.
>
> I suggest you discuss this one widely in the community and then put it
> to community vote since it is a very important issue moving forwards.
>
> Ross
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 30 September 2011 03:04, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show up at the PPMC, etc.
...
> Note specifically that a committer can have a narrow focus. But a
> PMC member has broader responsibilities. I'd expect a committer to
> have demonstrated competence in some area of the project that requires
> committer access, such as coding, testing, doc, or admin work. I'd
> expect a PMC member to additionally have a strong interest in the
> overall direction of the project, and to have exhibited insight and
> judgment that would be an asset to the oversight of the overall
> project .
>
> The Podling Guide [2] also supports this view, when it says: "The
> PPMC should take an active role in watching committers develop into
> community participants, identify those who are participating at a
> community level, not just a technical one, and approach them with an
> offer of PPMC membership."
This is an area where ASF projects differ from one another. Some
projects prefer to have a separation, others prefer not to.
In my experience a flatter organisational structure is generally
better. However, on a project as large and diverse as OOo this may not
be the case.
The reason for "flatter is better" is that people tend to be more
engaged when they feel more empowered. Once OOo graduates PMC members
will have binding votes on everything committers may not have binding
votes on everything (this is something that the PPMC needs to resolve
nearer the time). By creating the separation of roles you are creating
the potential for a hierarchy to emerge.
Generally we find that people will not meddle with areas of the
project they are not qualified to meddle in. It's kind of hard to do
so anyway since a veto requires an alternative course of action that
the community supports. If one isn't qualified to meddle how can one
come up with a proposal that will be supported?
>> My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors to be both committers and members of the PPMC. I have seen it recommended for Podlings and I see no reason to suddenly change. Also, I expect there will be some culling of the PPMC on graduation to a top-level project and a PMC.
>>
>
> I believe you have misread the recommendation in the Podling Guide.
> If you read the complete paragraph, it is clearer.
Never trust documentation in the ASF ;-)
You will find many many people who do not agree with that paragraph
but can't be bothered to change it (guilty ;-)
I think Denis is demonstrating an understanding of the alternative view.
Every year, just before the ASF Members meeting, we have the same
discussion about what barriers should there be to people becoming
members. Typically you will hear the oldest hands saying "minimal
barriers, we need bodies" whilst the newer hands will say "some
barriers, we need control".
I myself went through that process. I was amazed when I was voted in
as a member. I didn't think I'd done enough to deserve it. I watched
and learned. I realised early was good, but thought there should be
some barriers. Today, ten years on, I am of the "minimal barriers"
camp.
Now, ASF membership is different from OOo PMC membership. I'm not
suggesting that you have to go this way. I'm saying that just because
it is written doesn't mean it is the one true way.
>> I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever. There has been no injury or damage no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership in the PPMC.
>>
The argument of "there is no harm" is exactly the argument that
matters. There really is no harm in having all committers in the PMC.
The decision making process respects the community as a whole. Should
a member of the PMC be causing problems there are mechanisms for
dealing with it (it is very, very rare).
Conversely there is harm in not having a broad and varied PMC. There
is increased opportunity for vested interests to take control. There
are more rumours of backroom deals on the private list. There is a
feeling of reduced transparencey etc. None of these things exist in
the OOo podling, but when independent mentors like myself clear off
will the community trust the remaining PMC members?
Note, this decision is not an either/or. You can make it common
practie to invite committers to the PMC but allow committer proposals
to say "committer only" in specific cases.
I suggest you discuss this one widely in the community and then put it
to community vote since it is a very important issue moving forwards.
Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show up at the PPMC, etc.
>
> A question was raised at the PPMC whether that practice should be continued.
>
> One alternative would be to invite people to be committers and to invite committers to become PPMC members separately.
>
> Another alternative would be to decide on each individual consideration, whether to invite as committer or as committer plus PPMC.
>
> This discussion is to find out what the sentiments in the ooo-dev community are on this subject. It is also a way to learn what your questions are and endeavor to answer them.
>
Committer and PMC member are two different roles. As part of the
podling bootstrapping process all initial committers were also made
PMC members.
You can see the roles defined on the "How the ASF works page" [1]:
"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 people."
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."
Note specifically that a committer can have a narrow focus. But a
PMC member has broader responsibilities. I'd expect a committer to
have demonstrated competence in some area of the project that requires
committer access, such as coding, testing, doc, or admin work. I'd
expect a PMC member to additionally have a strong interest in the
overall direction of the project, and to have exhibited insight and
judgment that would be an asset to the oversight of the overall
project .
The Podling Guide [2] also supports this view, when it says: "The
PPMC should take an active role in watching committers develop into
community participants, identify those who are participating at a
community level, not just a technical one, and approach them with an
offer of PPMC membership."
So PPMC membership is seen as an additional step, after a committer
starts showing community contributions, not merely technical ones.
The Guide also says, "It should be a goal of a podling to have all
committers participate in the PPMC". I agree with that as goal, just
as I agree that it should be a goal for contributors to eventually
become committers. That is part of community development. But this
occurs as a process. We should not conflate the roles beyond what was
necessary when the project was bootstrapped.
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
> SOME CONTEXT
>
> The initial committers, those who were signed up on the original podling proposal, are automatically grandfathered into the project as committers and PPMC members. There are still some of those who have not shown up, some have submitted iCLAs but not gone farther, some do not respond to follow-up e-mails etc. Although there was discussion here on ooo-dev about having an use-by date on the Initial Committer invitations, action has not been taken to offer a last-chance and a deadline at this point. (I think that has been my action; I have not given it any priority.)
>
> MY PREFERENCE
>
> Since, I am speaking first, here's my view.
>
> My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors to be both committers and members of the PPMC. I have seen it recommended for Podlings and I see no reason to suddenly change. Also, I expect there will be some culling of the PPMC on graduation to a top-level project and a PMC.
>
I believe you have misread the recommendation in the Podling Guide.
If you read the complete paragraph, it is clearer.
> I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever. There has been no injury or damage no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership in the PPMC.
>
> The current practice exposes more contributors to the workings of the PPMC, and it also provides a way for contributors who are not exclusively focused on development to offer their contributions in yet another way. Part of the challenge of the incubator is to develop a sustainable activity for continuing renewal of participation in the face of contributor, committer, and PPMC member turnover. It is the initial PPMCs challenge to foster that and live it.
>
If we operate transparently, as we are here, then everyone is exposed
to "the workings of the PPMC".
> The way to develop a resilient, sustainable project, is to keep PPMC membership open to new committers for now.
>
> That's one view. There are many more. What are they?
>
>
>
>
>
>