Re: ****SPAM(7.8)**** Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
>> We have people, such as yourself, who have been very active on this
>> project.  In fact you are one of the people who comes to my mind when I
>> think about folks who have been very active in being a part of this
>> project.  In my opinion I think you are a person who deserves to be a
>> part of this, as I believe anyone who has been active should be.  It is
>> my belief that there should be no line between a PMC and the committers
>> list, and especially in this case where the project is brand new.  IMHO,
>> this community has been pretty healthy, and starting off with a cherry
>> picked elite group is not the way to kick off strong community.
> 
> I understand your points above but there was ample time to discuss this
> topic in Brett's original post (March 21st) about graduation and David's
> original stab at the resolution (March 28th).  The time for this
> discussion was on that thread.  

I was unaware that there are time limits on threads...I don't recall
seeing one attached to that, and I certainly do not see any rule sets
regarding that.  I find your comment here unnecessary.

> I know that I have not been actively
> following OpenEJB lately as I tend to be interested in doing performance
> work and not building the container.  My last commits were sometime last
> year I think.

I guess that excludes you ;-)

> 
> Perhaps another approach would have been to solicit the community on who
> wants to be responsible for the project and then we wouldn't have
> started with a pre-defined list.  I expect David's intent was not to be
> elitist but simply kick start the discussion.  (Although, David is best
> equipped to comment on his thinking so speculating is probably not
> profitable).
> 

+1...and I would probably predict that a majority would step up and want
to continue to be a part of this.

> Regardless, The project has been working really well and has gotten a
> lot of really good work done.  Communicated and worked together well.
> 
> I believe that the community will work out these issues as it moves
> forward and that there was no malice intended and this is perhaps more
> of a procedural boo boo.

I am certain no malice was intended.  But I think this is a bit more
than a procedural boo-boo.  It doesn't take a rocket science to see
there will be hurt feelings.  My vote stands. I will be the dissenting vote.

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>]

That sounds fine to me.  At least for my part, the PPMC has been 
essentially invisible, so I didn't even realize the project had one.  
Not being aware of that led me to wonder about the criteria used to pick 
the initial list of project members.  Now I know, and I'm fine with the 
selections. 

I really sort of agree with you about the role of the PMC.  My 
experience with them so far is that most of the work involves two 
tasks:  1)  deciding who should become committers, and 2)  deciding who 
should join the PMC.  1) can easily be done by the community in general, 
while 2) would become unnecessary without the PMC.  I'm sometimes a 
little uncomfortable about the "binding vote" concept, but I think in 
general if there's enough dispute that the non-binding votes would make 
a difference, then there's a larger problem that needs to be solved.

Rick

David Blevins wrote:
> If Apache were to pass a by-law saying PMCs are no longer required, 
> I'd be the first person to resign from it.  However we have to have a 
> PMC for legal oversight reasons and will continue to add people to it, 
> but I personally really hope it never becomes the "core" of our 
> community.  I hope that the core always remains right here on the dev 
> list where everyone, committer or not, can participate.
>
>
> We have done an excellent job in this community at making sure we all 
> feel like we make a difference here, that someone without commit 
> privileges has just as much voice as someone with commit.  Several 
> people, committers and otherwise have stood up and said so.  I think 
> it would be a terrible tragedy to start defining the word community as 
> those on the PMC and to say anyone not on the PMC are being ostracize 
> and not part of the community.
>
> I'm personally happy with the progress we've made for ourselves and am 
> fine adding more people to it over time.
>
> How do others feel?
>
>
> -David
>
>
>
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

It may be true that the (P)PMC can staff the (P)PMC and the project
itself at will.  But you would think the time of graduation was a time
for more transparency, not less.  For my part, I'd be interested to
see someone post a list of committers, a list of proposed PMC members,
and some indication of why those in the latter list were selected.
But of course, I'm not claiming I'm entitled to receive this.  :)

Thanks,
      Aaron

On 4/4/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> On 4/4/07, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jacek,
> >
> > Thanks for answering, but unfortunately, the PPMC that was bootstrapped was
> > Henri, Jason, and Brett.  So there is a delta between that PPMC and the
> > current list.  I saw no emails going out that stated that the new list of
> > attendees have been voted in.  The only discussion I saw was people asking
> > what they thought about David Blevins becoming our Chair, then he appeared
> > to hand pick a PMC.  If this is the way it went, then this is not community
> > driven at all.
>
> Ah, I understand your point now. I don't remember I ever knew why I
> was invited to PPMC - perhaps my email contributions mattered ;-) It
> just happened so I thought there was a discussion in private between
> PPMC members. I don't think PPMC needs to explain why one is on PPMC,
> and others are not. Those who could be invited are already committers.
> As you know from the Geronimo PMC, those who are committers and PMC
> member is always a question of how people are seen by current project
> participants. It's always a personal issue whether one is a good
> candidate or not. We're discussing it (here and in Geronimo PMC), but
> what matters for one might not be important to another.
>
> > I think David should have asked everyone who is interested in being on the
> > PMC, and given everyone a fair chance.
>
> I don't think there's anyone who has not been given a fair chance. I'd
> even say that it's not fair to have said so. It's in the discretion of
> the PPMC to decide who's a committer and who's not. The same applies
> to vote for a PPMC member.
>
> >  AFAICT, everyone has been dedicated
> > and I question the level of contributions in the last year from some of
> > those picked.  So I had to ask what is the criteria for being on this PMC.
>
> What do you mean by contributions? You're a Geronimo PMC member and
> I'm sure you're very well aware that there's no hard rules to vote
> people in. It's always discussed and (P)PMC doesn't need to share the
> outcome with the potential candidate.
>
> To be honest, I'm the only one who'd be questioned who's on the list.
> Why? I'm not a hard-coder like Mohammad, Manu, DMB, DJ, Dain plus the
> initial PPMC team. Is being 'talkative' enough to say that one
> contributed to a project? I don't know. I'm the one who met the
> criteria many times and perhaps it was that what made the PPMC to
> think to vote me in. I don't really know. But do I have to?
>
> I do hope I haven't hurt anyone. Please let me know if I did. I'll
> appologize at once and get rid of some nasty habits that might lead to
> it. Also, please bear in mind that English is not my mother language
> so not everything I had in my mind is in this email and won't likely
> be soon due to my ability to learn constraints.
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:57 AM, jgenender wrote:

>
> Yes this helps...thanks for responding.  Nobody knew there was a  
> PPMC beyond
> the original 3 mentors.  Now this clears it all up.

Great.

In fairness to our Mentors, Brett did post that list of PPMC info  
before he posted the vote and this thread, but point still understood  
(should have been trickled to the list real-time).


-David

>
> Jeff
>
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>> Ok, so here's the how/when/who info:
>>
>> The link posted by Brett contains the who/when:
>>   https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator-
>> info.txt
>>
>> The order goes basically (as shows in that document):
>>    Henri, Brett, Jason (all at the same time)
>>    David B, David J (all at the same time)
>>    Jacek, Alan, Dain  (all at the same time)
>>
>> And, yes, that was all done through voting and, no, I don't just get
>> to pick -- I get one vote like everyone.
>>
>> The three initial people brought in 2 people, the resulting 5 brought
>> in 3 more people, the resulting 7 haven't brought in anyone yet but
>> it's bound to happen any day now.
>>
>> As far as "why", again I can't say why others but me voted they way
>> they did.  It was pretty much "hey how about so-and-so" followed by a
>> bunch of +1s.  No one has been proposed and denied.
>>
>> I personally have proposed 3 people (Jacek, Alan, Dain) because we
>> needed more people on the PPMC for legal oversite (IMHO, 5 +1s is the
>> practical minumum).  I didn't propose more because I thought it wise
>> to let the "next wave" have a chance to propose people as they saw  
>> fit.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:16 AM, jgenender wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/4/07, Jacek Laskowski  wrote:
>>>> Ah, I understand your point now. I don't remember I ever knew why I
>>>> was invited to PPMC - perhaps my email contributions  
>>>> mattered ;-) It
>>>> just happened so I thought there was a discussion in private  
>>>> between
>>>> PPMC members. I don't think PPMC needs to explain why one is on  
>>>> PPMC,
>>>> and others are not. Those who could be invited are already
>>>> committers.
>>>> As you know from the Geronimo PMC, those who are committers and PMC
>>>> member is always a question of how people are seen by current  
>>>> project
>>>> participants. It's always a personal issue whether one is a good
>>>> candidate or not. We're discussing it (here and in Geronimo  
>>>> PMC), but
>>>> what matters for one might not be important to another.
>>>
>>> The missing component is the communication.  Was there a vote that
>>> occurred,
>>> or were you (and others) just picked by David?  David has yet to
>>> answer this
>>> question.  Normally on the other projects, there has been an email
>>> sent out
>>> saying XYZ has been voted on by the PMC...I saw no such email.
>>>
>>>> I don't think there's anyone who has not been given a fair chance.
>>>> I'd
>>>> even say that it's not fair to have said so. It's in the
>>>> discretion of
>>>> the PPMC to decide who's a committer and who's not. The same  
>>>> applies
>>>> to vote for a PPMC member.
>>>
>>> We haven't been given an answer on this as of yet.
>>>
>>>>>  AFAICT, everyone has been dedicated
>>>>> and I question the level of contributions in the last year from
>>>>> some of
>>>>> those picked.  So I had to ask what is the criteria for being on
>>>>> this
>>>>> PMC.
>>>> What do you mean by contributions? You're a Geronimo PMC member and
>>>> I'm sure you're very well aware that there's no hard rules to vote
>>>> people in. It's always discussed and (P)PMC doesn't need to  
>>>> share the
>>>> outcome with the potential candidate.
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I'm the only one who'd be questioned who's on the  
>>>> list.
>>>
>>> I don't agree.  You are a pretty heavy contributor in more than
>>> just code.
>>> In fact my code contributions have been light, but I do try to stay
>>> on top
>>> of issues, etc.  So don't question yourself ;-)
>>>
>>>> Why? I'm not a hard-coder like Mohammad, Manu, DMB, DJ, Dain  
>>>> plus the
>>>> initial PPMC team. Is being 'talkative' enough to say that one
>>>> contributed to a project? I don't know. I'm the one who met the
>>>> criteria many times and perhaps it was that what made the PPMC to
>>>> think to vote me in. I don't really know. But do I have to?
>>>
>>> No...nobody is questioning you.  A few of us want to know how/ 
>>> what/why
>>> people were picked.  Normally with an intact project and PMC, I can
>>> see the
>>> voting.  But coming from an incubated project where all folks are
>>> equal, I
>>> am having a hard time seeing how someone gets picked for PMC.  We
>>> all want
>>> to know what this criteria was, and who got to choose.  Did a vote
>>> occur?
>>> Or did David just pick?
>>>
>>>> I do hope I haven't hurt anyone. Please let me know if I did. I'll
>>>> appologize at once and get rid of some nasty habits that might
>>>> lead to
>>>> it. Also, please bear in mind that English is not my mother  
>>>> language
>>>> so not everything I had in my mind is in this email and won't  
>>>> likely
>>>> be soon due to my ability to learn constraints.
>>>
>>> You are doing fine ;-)  I really appreciate your comments and input.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>> -- 
>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-
>>> Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9839067
>>> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request- 
> Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9843358
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

Yes this helps...thanks for responding.  Nobody knew there was a PPMC beyond
the original 3 mentors.  Now this clears it all up.

Jeff


David Blevins wrote:
> 
> Ok, so here's the how/when/who info:
> 
> The link posted by Brett contains the who/when:
>   https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator- 
> info.txt
> 
> The order goes basically (as shows in that document):
>    Henri, Brett, Jason (all at the same time)
>    David B, David J (all at the same time)
>    Jacek, Alan, Dain  (all at the same time)
> 
> And, yes, that was all done through voting and, no, I don't just get  
> to pick -- I get one vote like everyone.
> 
> The three initial people brought in 2 people, the resulting 5 brought  
> in 3 more people, the resulting 7 haven't brought in anyone yet but  
> it's bound to happen any day now.
> 
> As far as "why", again I can't say why others but me voted they way  
> they did.  It was pretty much "hey how about so-and-so" followed by a  
> bunch of +1s.  No one has been proposed and denied.
> 
> I personally have proposed 3 people (Jacek, Alan, Dain) because we  
> needed more people on the PPMC for legal oversite (IMHO, 5 +1s is the  
> practical minumum).  I didn't propose more because I thought it wise  
> to let the "next wave" have a chance to propose people as they saw fit.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> -David
> 
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:16 AM, jgenender wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 4/4/07, Jacek Laskowski  wrote:
>>> Ah, I understand your point now. I don't remember I ever knew why I
>>> was invited to PPMC - perhaps my email contributions mattered ;-) It
>>> just happened so I thought there was a discussion in private between
>>> PPMC members. I don't think PPMC needs to explain why one is on PPMC,
>>> and others are not. Those who could be invited are already  
>>> committers.
>>> As you know from the Geronimo PMC, those who are committers and PMC
>>> member is always a question of how people are seen by current project
>>> participants. It's always a personal issue whether one is a good
>>> candidate or not. We're discussing it (here and in Geronimo PMC), but
>>> what matters for one might not be important to another.
>>
>> The missing component is the communication.  Was there a vote that  
>> occurred,
>> or were you (and others) just picked by David?  David has yet to  
>> answer this
>> question.  Normally on the other projects, there has been an email  
>> sent out
>> saying XYZ has been voted on by the PMC...I saw no such email.
>>
>>> I don't think there's anyone who has not been given a fair chance.  
>>> I'd
>>> even say that it's not fair to have said so. It's in the  
>>> discretion of
>>> the PPMC to decide who's a committer and who's not. The same applies
>>> to vote for a PPMC member.
>>
>> We haven't been given an answer on this as of yet.
>>
>>>>  AFAICT, everyone has been dedicated
>>>> and I question the level of contributions in the last year from  
>>>> some of
>>>> those picked.  So I had to ask what is the criteria for being on  
>>>> this
>>>> PMC.
>>> What do you mean by contributions? You're a Geronimo PMC member and
>>> I'm sure you're very well aware that there's no hard rules to vote
>>> people in. It's always discussed and (P)PMC doesn't need to share the
>>> outcome with the potential candidate.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I'm the only one who'd be questioned who's on the list.
>>
>> I don't agree.  You are a pretty heavy contributor in more than  
>> just code.
>> In fact my code contributions have been light, but I do try to stay  
>> on top
>> of issues, etc.  So don't question yourself ;-)
>>
>>> Why? I'm not a hard-coder like Mohammad, Manu, DMB, DJ, Dain plus the
>>> initial PPMC team. Is being 'talkative' enough to say that one
>>> contributed to a project? I don't know. I'm the one who met the
>>> criteria many times and perhaps it was that what made the PPMC to
>>> think to vote me in. I don't really know. But do I have to?
>>
>> No...nobody is questioning you.  A few of us want to know how/what/why
>> people were picked.  Normally with an intact project and PMC, I can  
>> see the
>> voting.  But coming from an incubated project where all folks are  
>> equal, I
>> am having a hard time seeing how someone gets picked for PMC.  We  
>> all want
>> to know what this criteria was, and who got to choose.  Did a vote  
>> occur?
>> Or did David just pick?
>>
>>> I do hope I haven't hurt anyone. Please let me know if I did. I'll
>>> appologize at once and get rid of some nasty habits that might  
>>> lead to
>>> it. Also, please bear in mind that English is not my mother language
>>> so not everything I had in my mind is in this email and won't likely
>>> be soon due to my ability to learn constraints.
>>
>> You are doing fine ;-)  I really appreciate your comments and input.
>>
>> Jeff
>> -- 
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request- 
>> Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9839067
>> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9843358
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

David Blevins wrote:
> Thanks for your +0, I think that is a really constructive way to say
> "let's pause and talk."  A good example to set.

No thanks for my -1???  Come on!!

:-D

Jeff

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> David,
>
> Thanks for the explanation.  I think the lesson learned is the (P) 
> PMC needs to be more transparent which I expect was an oversight  
> because things were working so well  :-)

A little too good it seems :)  Very happy we got this out there and  
cleared up.

> I have to say that the discussion on the topic has been really good  
> and shows some good community dynamics.  I think the progress made  
> on OpenEJB3 has been spectacular (hats off to those on the commit  
> log) and I know there's been a lot of grinding on EJB2 regarding  
> the new Yoko work; net is that I think things are really going well.
>
> Based on the issues raised and clarified by Jacek and Genender I  
> think things are in good shape and would give OpenEJB a solid +1  
> (even more so now than before) for graduation.
>
> To make sure things are clear I'd suggest close the old vote and  
> respin a new one (with fewer comments :-)

I think that sounds good.  I'll divert to Brett who started the  
original vote thread and let him have the honors.  We may want to let  
it bake overnight just to make sure everyone across the international  
dateline has a chance to get some final words in.

> Thanks for shepherding this through.

Thanks for your +0, I think that is a really constructive way to say  
"let's pause and talk."  A good example to set.

Very best regards,

David


>
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 2:42 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Ok, so here's the how/when/who info:
>>
>> The link posted by Brett contains the who/when:
>>  https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator- 
>> info.txt
>>
>> The order goes basically (as shows in that document):
>>   Henri, Brett, Jason (all at the same time)
>>   David B, David J (all at the same time)
>>   Jacek, Alan, Dain  (all at the same time)
>>
>> And, yes, that was all done through voting and, no, I don't just  
>> get to pick -- I get one vote like everyone.
>>
>> The three initial people brought in 2 people, the resulting 5  
>> brought in 3 more people, the resulting 7 haven't brought in  
>> anyone yet but it's bound to happen any day now.
>>
>> As far as "why", again I can't say why others but me voted they  
>> way they did.  It was pretty much "hey how about so-and-so"  
>> followed by a bunch of +1s.  No one has been proposed and denied.
>>
>> I personally have proposed 3 people (Jacek, Alan, Dain) because we  
>> needed more people on the PPMC for legal oversite (IMHO, 5 +1s is  
>> the practical minumum).  I didn't propose more because I thought  
>> it wise to let the "next wave" have a chance to propose people as  
>> they saw fit.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>> -David
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

David,

Thanks for the explanation.  I think the lesson learned is the (P)PMC  
needs to be more transparent which I expect was an oversight because  
things were working so well  :-)

I have to say that the discussion on the topic has been really good  
and shows some good community dynamics.  I think the progress made on  
OpenEJB3 has been spectacular (hats off to those on the commit log)  
and I know there's been a lot of grinding on EJB2 regarding the new  
Yoko work; net is that I think things are really going well.

Based on the issues raised and clarified by Jacek and Genender I  
think things are in good shape and would give OpenEJB a solid +1  
(even more so now than before) for graduation.

To make sure things are clear I'd suggest close the old vote and  
respin a new one (with fewer comments :-)

Thanks for shepherding this through.

On Apr 4, 2007, at 2:42 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Ok, so here's the how/when/who info:
>
> The link posted by Brett contains the who/when:
>  https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator- 
> info.txt
>
> The order goes basically (as shows in that document):
>   Henri, Brett, Jason (all at the same time)
>   David B, David J (all at the same time)
>   Jacek, Alan, Dain  (all at the same time)
>
> And, yes, that was all done through voting and, no, I don't just  
> get to pick -- I get one vote like everyone.
>
> The three initial people brought in 2 people, the resulting 5  
> brought in 3 more people, the resulting 7 haven't brought in anyone  
> yet but it's bound to happen any day now.
>
> As far as "why", again I can't say why others but me voted they way  
> they did.  It was pretty much "hey how about so-and-so" followed by  
> a bunch of +1s.  No one has been proposed and denied.
>
> I personally have proposed 3 people (Jacek, Alan, Dain) because we  
> needed more people on the PPMC for legal oversite (IMHO, 5 +1s is  
> the practical minumum).  I didn't propose more because I thought it  
> wise to let the "next wave" have a chance to propose people as they  
> saw fit.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> -David

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

Ok, so here's the how/when/who info:

The link posted by Brett contains the who/when:
  https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator- 
info.txt

The order goes basically (as shows in that document):
   Henri, Brett, Jason (all at the same time)
   David B, David J (all at the same time)
   Jacek, Alan, Dain  (all at the same time)

And, yes, that was all done through voting and, no, I don't just get  
to pick -- I get one vote like everyone.

The three initial people brought in 2 people, the resulting 5 brought  
in 3 more people, the resulting 7 haven't brought in anyone yet but  
it's bound to happen any day now.

As far as "why", again I can't say why others but me voted they way  
they did.  It was pretty much "hey how about so-and-so" followed by a  
bunch of +1s.  No one has been proposed and denied.

I personally have proposed 3 people (Jacek, Alan, Dain) because we  
needed more people on the PPMC for legal oversite (IMHO, 5 +1s is the  
practical minumum).  I didn't propose more because I thought it wise  
to let the "next wave" have a chance to propose people as they saw fit.

Hope that helps.

-David

On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:16 AM, jgenender wrote:

>
>
> On 4/4/07, Jacek Laskowski  wrote:
>> Ah, I understand your point now. I don't remember I ever knew why I
>> was invited to PPMC - perhaps my email contributions mattered ;-) It
>> just happened so I thought there was a discussion in private between
>> PPMC members. I don't think PPMC needs to explain why one is on PPMC,
>> and others are not. Those who could be invited are already  
>> committers.
>> As you know from the Geronimo PMC, those who are committers and PMC
>> member is always a question of how people are seen by current project
>> participants. It's always a personal issue whether one is a good
>> candidate or not. We're discussing it (here and in Geronimo PMC), but
>> what matters for one might not be important to another.
>
> The missing component is the communication.  Was there a vote that  
> occurred,
> or were you (and others) just picked by David?  David has yet to  
> answer this
> question.  Normally on the other projects, there has been an email  
> sent out
> saying XYZ has been voted on by the PMC...I saw no such email.
>
>> I don't think there's anyone who has not been given a fair chance.  
>> I'd
>> even say that it's not fair to have said so. It's in the  
>> discretion of
>> the PPMC to decide who's a committer and who's not. The same applies
>> to vote for a PPMC member.
>
> We haven't been given an answer on this as of yet.
>
>>>  AFAICT, everyone has been dedicated
>>> and I question the level of contributions in the last year from  
>>> some of
>>> those picked.  So I had to ask what is the criteria for being on  
>>> this
>>> PMC.
>> What do you mean by contributions? You're a Geronimo PMC member and
>> I'm sure you're very well aware that there's no hard rules to vote
>> people in. It's always discussed and (P)PMC doesn't need to share the
>> outcome with the potential candidate.
>>
>> To be honest, I'm the only one who'd be questioned who's on the list.
>
> I don't agree.  You are a pretty heavy contributor in more than  
> just code.
> In fact my code contributions have been light, but I do try to stay  
> on top
> of issues, etc.  So don't question yourself ;-)
>
>> Why? I'm not a hard-coder like Mohammad, Manu, DMB, DJ, Dain plus the
>> initial PPMC team. Is being 'talkative' enough to say that one
>> contributed to a project? I don't know. I'm the one who met the
>> criteria many times and perhaps it was that what made the PPMC to
>> think to vote me in. I don't really know. But do I have to?
>
> No...nobody is questioning you.  A few of us want to know how/what/why
> people were picked.  Normally with an intact project and PMC, I can  
> see the
> voting.  But coming from an incubated project where all folks are  
> equal, I
> am having a hard time seeing how someone gets picked for PMC.  We  
> all want
> to know what this criteria was, and who got to choose.  Did a vote  
> occur?
> Or did David just pick?
>
>> I do hope I haven't hurt anyone. Please let me know if I did. I'll
>> appologize at once and get rid of some nasty habits that might  
>> lead to
>> it. Also, please bear in mind that English is not my mother language
>> so not everything I had in my mind is in this email and won't likely
>> be soon due to my ability to learn constraints.
>
> You are doing fine ;-)  I really appreciate your comments and input.
>
> Jeff
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request- 
> Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9839067
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

On 4/4/07, Jacek Laskowski  wrote:
>Ah, I understand your point now. I don't remember I ever knew why I
>was invited to PPMC - perhaps my email contributions mattered ;-) It
>just happened so I thought there was a discussion in private between
>PPMC members. I don't think PPMC needs to explain why one is on PPMC,
>and others are not. Those who could be invited are already committers.
>As you know from the Geronimo PMC, those who are committers and PMC
>member is always a question of how people are seen by current project
>participants. It's always a personal issue whether one is a good
>candidate or not. We're discussing it (here and in Geronimo PMC), but
>what matters for one might not be important to another.

The missing component is the communication.  Was there a vote that occurred,
or were you (and others) just picked by David?  David has yet to answer this
question.  Normally on the other projects, there has been an email sent out
saying XYZ has been voted on by the PMC...I saw no such email.

>I don't think there's anyone who has not been given a fair chance. I'd
>even say that it's not fair to have said so. It's in the discretion of
>the PPMC to decide who's a committer and who's not. The same applies
>to vote for a PPMC member.

We haven't been given an answer on this as of yet.

>>  AFAICT, everyone has been dedicated
>> and I question the level of contributions in the last year from some of
>> those picked.  So I had to ask what is the criteria for being on this
>> PMC.
>What do you mean by contributions? You're a Geronimo PMC member and
>I'm sure you're very well aware that there's no hard rules to vote
>people in. It's always discussed and (P)PMC doesn't need to share the
>outcome with the potential candidate.
>
>To be honest, I'm the only one who'd be questioned who's on the list.

I don't agree.  You are a pretty heavy contributor in more than just code. 
In fact my code contributions have been light, but I do try to stay on top
of issues, etc.  So don't question yourself ;-)

>Why? I'm not a hard-coder like Mohammad, Manu, DMB, DJ, Dain plus the
>initial PPMC team. Is being 'talkative' enough to say that one
>contributed to a project? I don't know. I'm the one who met the
>criteria many times and perhaps it was that what made the PPMC to
>think to vote me in. I don't really know. But do I have to?

No...nobody is questioning you.  A few of us want to know how/what/why
people were picked.  Normally with an intact project and PMC, I can see the
voting.  But coming from an incubated project where all folks are equal, I
am having a hard time seeing how someone gets picked for PMC.  We all want
to know what this criteria was, and who got to choose.  Did a vote occur? 
Or did David just pick?

>I do hope I haven't hurt anyone. Please let me know if I did. I'll
>appologize at once and get rid of some nasty habits that might lead to
>it. Also, please bear in mind that English is not my mother language
>so not everything I had in my mind is in this email and won't likely
>be soon due to my ability to learn constraints.

You are doing fine ;-)  I really appreciate your comments and input.

Jeff
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9839067
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>]

On 4/4/07, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jacek,
>
> Thanks for answering, but unfortunately, the PPMC that was bootstrapped was
> Henri, Jason, and Brett.  So there is a delta between that PPMC and the
> current list.  I saw no emails going out that stated that the new list of
> attendees have been voted in.  The only discussion I saw was people asking
> what they thought about David Blevins becoming our Chair, then he appeared
> to hand pick a PMC.  If this is the way it went, then this is not community
> driven at all.

Ah, I understand your point now. I don't remember I ever knew why I
was invited to PPMC - perhaps my email contributions mattered ;-) It
just happened so I thought there was a discussion in private between
PPMC members. I don't think PPMC needs to explain why one is on PPMC,
and others are not. Those who could be invited are already committers.
As you know from the Geronimo PMC, those who are committers and PMC
member is always a question of how people are seen by current project
participants. It's always a personal issue whether one is a good
candidate or not. We're discussing it (here and in Geronimo PMC), but
what matters for one might not be important to another.

> I think David should have asked everyone who is interested in being on the
> PMC, and given everyone a fair chance.

I don't think there's anyone who has not been given a fair chance. I'd
even say that it's not fair to have said so. It's in the discretion of
the PPMC to decide who's a committer and who's not. The same applies
to vote for a PPMC member.

>  AFAICT, everyone has been dedicated
> and I question the level of contributions in the last year from some of
> those picked.  So I had to ask what is the criteria for being on this PMC.

What do you mean by contributions? You're a Geronimo PMC member and
I'm sure you're very well aware that there's no hard rules to vote
people in. It's always discussed and (P)PMC doesn't need to share the
outcome with the potential candidate.

To be honest, I'm the only one who'd be questioned who's on the list.
Why? I'm not a hard-coder like Mohammad, Manu, DMB, DJ, Dain plus the
initial PPMC team. Is being 'talkative' enough to say that one
contributed to a project? I don't know. I'm the one who met the
criteria many times and perhaps it was that what made the PPMC to
think to vote me in. I don't really know. But do I have to?

I do hope I haven't hurt anyone. Please let me know if I did. I'll
appologize at once and get rid of some nasty habits that might lead to
it. Also, please bear in mind that English is not my mother language
so not everything I had in my mind is in this email and won't likely
be soon due to my ability to learn constraints.

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>]

Hi All...

I think that this subject has taken a lot of discussion, as long as we are
all represent one team and no one has a higher voice than the other whether
he\she is a committer, not committer , PMC or not PMC member - which is the
same thing David said some where in this loooooooooong thread - . What I
really care about is not all these things, what I really care about is the
team, all people who contribute to this community regardless their *role
definition* are members of this great team, I hope we don't loose our spirit
for some *boo boo* - I like this name :D - and don't loose the effort we all
have done and concentrate on  the effort we all have to do to make this team
better and better to be the best among all other teams. I know that this is
not a so official statement regarding the procedures and so, but I felt that
I like to deliver it to the list and to the team which I am so proud to be a
member of.

On 4/5/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > Da
>
> Wow..you sound just like my 9 month old calling for me! ;-)
>
> >
> > On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:17 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Thanks for openly discussing this matter and bringing it to consensus.
> >> This is a healthy community indeed.
> >>
> >> Let me sanity check that I've caught everything correctly:
> >> - the ppmc should have been sending out announcements of appointments
> >> as they were made. Lesson learned.
> >> - the group as a whole would like to proceed with graduation now based
> >> on the original proposal (pending a successful vote first, of course)
> >> - the pmc should make reviewing potential new pmc members a priority
> >> after graduation is complete
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Brett
> >>
>



-- 
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>]

David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for 
>>>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the 
>>>> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In the 
>>>> other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be added 
>>>> and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really caused me 
>>>> to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance in how 
>>>> incubator does these things.
>>>
>>> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our 
>>> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over time.
>>
>> If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC 
>> members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an 
>> official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable 
>> way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project.
>
> Corrrect.  And the key word is "inital" PMC Members.
>
>> The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion, seems 
>> to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to the 
>> community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that 
>> members were added over time. However, I cannot find any 
>> notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were being 
>> made.
>
> I concur that this seems to be the real mistake.  There also was 
> (maybe even still) some confusion about the list of names in the 
> proposal.  It's the PMC list not the committer list, all committers 
> will still be committers at graduation.  (restating that as I got an 
> email today asking why they were no longer on the project, so this 
> confusion still seems to be out there).
I suspect at least part of the confusion was the use of the term 
"Project Members" in the proposal.  I had the same gut reaction when I 
read that until I finally made the mental connection that "Project 
Members" == "PMC members".

Rick


>
>> I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the current 
>> PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member was added 
>> to the PPMC. This information can then be used in discussing the 
>> proposed PMC membership...
>
> That's a good discussion to have, going to answer that on Jeff's thread.
>
> -David
>
>
>
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Da

Wow..you sound just like my 9 month old calling for me! ;-)

> 
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:17 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks for openly discussing this matter and bringing it to consensus.
>> This is a healthy community indeed.
>>
>> Let me sanity check that I've caught everything correctly:
>> - the ppmc should have been sending out announcements of appointments
>> as they were made. Lesson learned.
>> - the group as a whole would like to proceed with graduation now based
>> on the original proposal (pending a successful vote first, of course)
>> - the pmc should make reviewing potential new pmc members a priority
>> after graduation is complete
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Da

On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:17 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for openly discussing this matter and bringing it to  
> consensus. This is a healthy community indeed.
>
> Let me sanity check that I've caught everything correctly:
> - the ppmc should have been sending out announcements of  
> appointments as they were made. Lesson learned.
> - the group as a whole would like to proceed with graduation now  
> based on the original proposal (pending a successful vote first, of  
> course)
> - the pmc should make reviewing potential new pmc members a  
> priority after graduation is complete
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Looks good to me ;-)

Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for openly discussing this matter and bringing it to consensus.
> This is a healthy community indeed.
> 
> Let me sanity check that I've caught everything correctly:
> - the ppmc should have been sending out announcements of appointments as
> they were made. Lesson learned.
> - the group as a whole would like to proceed with graduation now based
> on the original proposal (pending a successful vote first, of course)
> - the pmc should make reviewing potential new pmc members a priority
> after graduation is complete
> 
> Cheers,
> Brett

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

Hi all,

Thanks for openly discussing this matter and bringing it to  
consensus. This is a healthy community indeed.

Let me sanity check that I've caught everything correctly:
- the ppmc should have been sending out announcements of appointments  
as they were made. Lesson learned.
- the group as a whole would like to proceed with graduation now  
based on the original proposal (pending a successful vote first, of  
course)
- the pmc should make reviewing potential new pmc members a priority  
after graduation is complete

Cheers,
Brett

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

Excellent note, Jeff.

I think you're spot on and have apologize for my part of the  
silence.  There was no mal intent there and in retrospect it was a  
really unfortunate mistake to have made.  For my part of that I can  
say that I saw us doing so well keeping the weight of the community  
on the dev list and did see the need/benefit of drawing attention and  
focus onto the PMC.  Clearly we went too far in the other direction.   
Lesson learned.

As for silence on the thread itself, I have to apologize if the right  
information and responses were not coming fast enough in the thread.   
It's no secret I have a lot of weight on the project, I am perhaps  
overly aware of it.  It's very hard to balance having a voice of my  
own and not dominating the conversation in the process.  I think  
discussions like these though, do a great deal in helping/keeping the  
project in balance.

We all have something to improve, we're all learning and I agree,  
this is how we will make our project even better.


-David

On Apr 4, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:

>
> David,
>
> Thanks.  Rest assured my intentions were never any malice nor did I  
> ever
> believe what you had done had any malice intent.  I will accept that I
> can be a bit matter of fact, and perhaps brash...I think its my
> upbringing - I can always use a little work on my emails and
> communication ;-).
>
> But I think it comes down to email too.  2 people can read things
> differently...one has an intent and one has reception.  I think my
> initial emails could be read 2 different ways depending on the  
> frame of
> mind.  Yet another tone being injected based on where we are  
> at...if we
> are feeling defensive, etc.  I can honestly say, I certainly wasn't
> trying to scream bloody murderer...just get to the bottom of what was
> going on. ;-)
>
> We can argue all day on how I may have said things in a bad manner,  
> and
> I can say all day that was not what I was saying.  I will be  
> accountable
> for my rough edges, but I think the PPMC and you should be accountable
> for the lack of communication and long period of silence.  This easily
> could have been thwarted early on, but it was left to fester.
>
> Bottom line is, we all need a bit of accountability here.  This is how
> we are going to learn and be successful. I'll take my brashness  
> lumps. ;-)
>
> I am really excited we got past this and look forward to OpenEJBs
> acceptance as a top level project!
>
> Jeff
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>
>> I'm really glad you are happy and am also really glad you spoke  
>> up, this
>> is critical to a health community.
>>
>> I do have one lesson for the group to learn and I hope that you  
>> can help
>> me make it.  It's that if you (anyone) suspect something is not  
>> right or
>> unclear, as a matter of respect and trust you can't fall into the
>> emotional trap of thinking that the it was intentional or  
>> malicous.  If
>> your first post is to scream foul or bloody murder, you won't be  
>> doing
>> yourself or the group any good and will likely end up making more
>> problems than you intend to solve.  As a matter of respect,  
>> patients and
>> trust the best first course of action is to simply ask for more
>> information in a very non-aggressive and non-accusatory fashion  
>> before
>> coming to any conclusions.
>>
>> If we can do this, there's no limit to what we can achieve together.
>>
>> Very best regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:54 AM, jgenender wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Ok...so I get it now.  You were building a PMC all along.  I want to
>>> apologize for my reaction...as I was unaware of this.  It just  
>>> looked
>>> to us
>>> like you instantly came up with a list.
>>>
>>> It really would have helped if we all knew people were getting voted
>>> on all
>>> along.  I think knowing who/when from the past and moving  
>>> forward, this
>>> could have been avoided.  I was certainly confused and this  
>>> definitely
>>> now
>>> makes some sense.
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying this...and I will change to a +1.  Please keep
>>> us in
>>> the loop on these sorts of things ;-)
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for
>>>>>>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the
>>>>>>> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In
>>>>>>> the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be
>>>>>>> added and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really
>>>>>>> caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my  
>>>>>>> ignorance
>>>>>>> in how incubator does these things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case  
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over  
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC
>>>>> members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an
>>>>> official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable
>>>>> way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project.
>>>>
>>>> Corrrect.  And the key word is "inital" PMC Members.
>>>>
>>>>> The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion,
>>>>> seems to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to  
>>>>> the
>>>>> community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that
>>>>> members were added over time. However, I cannot find any
>>>>> notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were
>>>>> being made.
>>>>
>>>> I concur that this seems to be the real mistake.  There also was
>>>> (maybe even still) some confusion about the list of names in the
>>>> proposal.  It's the PMC list not the committer list, all committers
>>>> will still be committers at graduation.  (restating that as I  
>>>> got an
>>>> email today asking why they were no longer on the project, so this
>>>> confusion still seems to be out there).
>>>>
>>>>> I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the
>>>>> current PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member
>>>>> was added to the PPMC. This information can then be used in
>>>>> discussing the proposed PMC membership...
>>>>
>>>> That's a good discussion to have, going to answer that on Jeff's  
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-Graduation-to-a-TLP- 
>>> tf3509720s2756.html#a9843256
>>>
>>> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

David,

Thanks.  Rest assured my intentions were never any malice nor did I ever
believe what you had done had any malice intent.  I will accept that I
can be a bit matter of fact, and perhaps brash...I think its my
upbringing - I can always use a little work on my emails and
communication ;-).

But I think it comes down to email too.  2 people can read things
differently...one has an intent and one has reception.  I think my
initial emails could be read 2 different ways depending on the frame of
mind.  Yet another tone being injected based on where we are at...if we
are feeling defensive, etc.  I can honestly say, I certainly wasn't
trying to scream bloody murderer...just get to the bottom of what was
going on. ;-)

We can argue all day on how I may have said things in a bad manner, and
I can say all day that was not what I was saying.  I will be accountable
for my rough edges, but I think the PPMC and you should be accountable
for the lack of communication and long period of silence.  This easily
could have been thwarted early on, but it was left to fester.

Bottom line is, we all need a bit of accountability here.  This is how
we are going to learn and be successful. I'll take my brashness lumps. ;-)

I am really excited we got past this and look forward to OpenEJBs
acceptance as a top level project!

Jeff

David Blevins wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> I'm really glad you are happy and am also really glad you spoke up, this
> is critical to a health community.
> 
> I do have one lesson for the group to learn and I hope that you can help
> me make it.  It's that if you (anyone) suspect something is not right or
> unclear, as a matter of respect and trust you can't fall into the
> emotional trap of thinking that the it was intentional or malicous.  If
> your first post is to scream foul or bloody murder, you won't be doing
> yourself or the group any good and will likely end up making more
> problems than you intend to solve.  As a matter of respect, patients and
> trust the best first course of action is to simply ask for more
> information in a very non-aggressive and non-accusatory fashion before
> coming to any conclusions.
> 
> If we can do this, there's no limit to what we can achieve together.
> 
> Very best regards,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:54 AM, jgenender wrote:
> 
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Ok...so I get it now.  You were building a PMC all along.  I want to
>> apologize for my reaction...as I was unaware of this.  It just looked
>> to us
>> like you instantly came up with a list.
>>
>> It really would have helped if we all knew people were getting voted
>> on all
>> along.  I think knowing who/when from the past and moving forward, this
>> could have been avoided.  I was certainly confused and this definitely
>> now
>> makes some sense.
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying this...and I will change to a +1.  Please keep
>> us in
>> the loop on these sorts of things ;-)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for
>>>>>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the
>>>>>> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In
>>>>>> the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be
>>>>>> added and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really
>>>>>> caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance
>>>>>> in how incubator does these things.
>>>>>
>>>>> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our
>>>>> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over time.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC
>>>> members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an
>>>> official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable
>>>> way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project.
>>>
>>> Corrrect.  And the key word is "inital" PMC Members.
>>>
>>>> The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion,
>>>> seems to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to the
>>>> community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that
>>>> members were added over time. However, I cannot find any
>>>> notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were
>>>> being made.
>>>
>>> I concur that this seems to be the real mistake.  There also was
>>> (maybe even still) some confusion about the list of names in the
>>> proposal.  It's the PMC list not the committer list, all committers
>>> will still be committers at graduation.  (restating that as I got an
>>> email today asking why they were no longer on the project, so this
>>> confusion still seems to be out there).
>>>
>>>> I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the
>>>> current PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member
>>>> was added to the PPMC. This information can then be used in
>>>> discussing the proposed PMC membership...
>>>
>>> That's a good discussion to have, going to answer that on Jeff's thread.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9843256
>>
>> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

Jeff,

I'm really glad you are happy and am also really glad you spoke up,  
this is critical to a health community.

I do have one lesson for the group to learn and I hope that you can  
help me make it.  It's that if you (anyone) suspect something is not  
right or unclear, as a matter of respect and trust you can't fall  
into the emotional trap of thinking that the it was intentional or  
malicous.  If your first post is to scream foul or bloody murder, you  
won't be doing yourself or the group any good and will likely end up  
making more problems than you intend to solve.  As a matter of  
respect, patients and trust the best first course of action is to  
simply ask for more information in a very non-aggressive and non- 
accusatory fashion before coming to any conclusions.

If we can do this, there's no limit to what we can achieve together.

Very best regards,

David


On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:54 AM, jgenender wrote:

>
> David,
>
> Ok...so I get it now.  You were building a PMC all along.  I want to
> apologize for my reaction...as I was unaware of this.  It just  
> looked to us
> like you instantly came up with a list.
>
> It really would have helped if we all knew people were getting  
> voted on all
> along.  I think knowing who/when from the past and moving forward,  
> this
> could have been avoided.  I was certainly confused and this  
> definitely now
> makes some sense.
>
> Thanks for clarifying this...and I will change to a +1.  Please  
> keep us in
> the loop on these sorts of things ;-)
>
> Jeff
>
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for
>>>>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the
>>>>> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In
>>>>> the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be
>>>>> added and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really
>>>>> caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance
>>>>> in how incubator does these things.
>>>>
>>>> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our
>>>> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over  
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC
>>> members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an
>>> official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable
>>> way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project.
>>
>> Corrrect.  And the key word is "inital" PMC Members.
>>
>>> The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion,
>>> seems to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to the
>>> community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that
>>> members were added over time. However, I cannot find any
>>> notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were
>>> being made.
>>
>> I concur that this seems to be the real mistake.  There also was
>> (maybe even still) some confusion about the list of names in the
>> proposal.  It's the PMC list not the committer list, all committers
>> will still be committers at graduation.  (restating that as I got an
>> email today asking why they were no longer on the project, so this
>> confusion still seems to be out there).
>>
>>> I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the
>>> current PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member
>>> was added to the PPMC. This information can then be used in
>>> discussing the proposed PMC membership...
>>
>> That's a good discussion to have, going to answer that on Jeff's  
>> thread.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request- 
> Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9843256
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

David,

Ok...so I get it now.  You were building a PMC all along.  I want to
apologize for my reaction...as I was unaware of this.  It just looked to us
like you instantly came up with a list.

It really would have helped if we all knew people were getting voted on all
along.  I think knowing who/when from the past and moving forward, this
could have been avoided.  I was certainly confused and this definitely now
makes some sense.

Thanks for clarifying this...and I will change to a +1.  Please keep us in
the loop on these sorts of things ;-)

Jeff


David Blevins wrote:
> 
> 
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for  
>>>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the  
>>>> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In  
>>>> the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be  
>>>> added and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really  
>>>> caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance  
>>>> in how incubator does these things.
>>>
>>> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our  
>>> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over time.
>>
>> If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC  
>> members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an  
>> official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable  
>> way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project.
> 
> Corrrect.  And the key word is "inital" PMC Members.
> 
>> The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion,  
>> seems to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to the  
>> community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that  
>> members were added over time. However, I cannot find any  
>> notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were  
>> being made.
> 
> I concur that this seems to be the real mistake.  There also was  
> (maybe even still) some confusion about the list of names in the  
> proposal.  It's the PMC list not the committer list, all committers  
> will still be committers at graduation.  (restating that as I got an  
> email today asking why they were no longer on the project, so this  
> confusion still seems to be out there).
> 
>> I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the  
>> current PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member  
>> was added to the PPMC. This information can then be used in  
>> discussing the proposed PMC membership...
> 
> That's a good discussion to have, going to answer that on Jeff's thread.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9843256
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for  
>>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the  
>>> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In  
>>> the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be  
>>> added and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really  
>>> caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance  
>>> in how incubator does these things.
>>
>> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our  
>> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over time.
>
> If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC  
> members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an  
> official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable  
> way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project.

Corrrect.  And the key word is "inital" PMC Members.

> The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion,  
> seems to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to the  
> community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that  
> members were added over time. However, I cannot find any  
> notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were  
> being made.

I concur that this seems to be the real mistake.  There also was  
(maybe even still) some confusion about the list of names in the  
proposal.  It's the PMC list not the committer list, all committers  
will still be committers at graduation.  (restating that as I got an  
email today asking why they were no longer on the project, so this  
confusion still seems to be out there).

> I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the  
> current PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member  
> was added to the PPMC. This information can then be used in  
> discussing the proposed PMC membership...

That's a good discussion to have, going to answer that on Jeff's thread.

-David

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:

>
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for  
>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the  
>> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In  
>> the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be  
>> added and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really  
>> caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance  
>> in how incubator does these things.
>
> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our  
> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over time.

If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC  
members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an  
official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable  
way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project.

The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion, seems  
to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to the  
community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that  
members were added over time. However, I cannot find any  
notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were being  
made.

I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the current  
PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member was added  
to the PPMC. This information can then be used in discussing the  
proposed PMC membership...

>
> Doing the PMC == commit thing is interesting, but no Apache project  
> has ever done that and don't really know that'd I'd want to be the  
> first, especially as we've done so well at keeping the dev list as  
> our "center of gravity".

I tend to agree. I think there is additional PMC education that needs  
to occur. There are additional things that need to be learned for  
project oversight. Best to keep the two things separate... However,  
this does not mean that the PMC should be secret...

--kevan

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

Hi Jacek,

Thanks for answering, but unfortunately, the PPMC that was bootstrapped was
Henri, Jason, and Brett.  So there is a delta between that PPMC and the
current list.  I saw no emails going out that stated that the new list of
attendees have been voted in.  The only discussion I saw was people asking
what they thought about David Blevins becoming our Chair, then he appeared
to hand pick a PMC.  If this is the way it went, then this is not community
driven at all.

I think David should have asked everyone who is interested in being on the
PMC, and given everyone a fair chance.  AFAICT, everyone has been dedicated
and I question the level of contributions in the last year from some of
those picked.  So I had to ask what is the criteria for being on this PMC.

Jeff

Jacek Laskowski-4 wrote:
> 
> On 4/4/07, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> I am sorry, but I am not ok and I do *not* agree all is well.  I think my
>> emails have been pretty clear on that.  You have not answered the
>> questions
>> on how this initial PMC list was chosen.
> 
> Hey Jeff,
> 
> Let me answer it before Dave gets his chance - the initial OpenEJB PMC
> list setup has been described by Brett on the general@incubator
> mailing list - http://tinyurl.com/2ogqc4.
> 
> Jacek
> 
> -- 
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9836114
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>]

On 4/4/07, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:

> I am sorry, but I am not ok and I do *not* agree all is well.  I think my
> emails have been pretty clear on that.  You have not answered the questions
> on how this initial PMC list was chosen.

Hey Jeff,

Let me answer it before Dave gets his chance - the initial OpenEJB PMC
list setup has been described by Brett on the general@incubator
mailing list - http://tinyurl.com/2ogqc4.

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

David,

I am sorry, but I am not ok and I do *not* agree all is well.  I think my
emails have been pretty clear on that.  You have not answered the questions
on how this initial PMC list was chosen.

Jeff


David Blevins wrote:
> 
> This is a good note.  I have just one comment on this part.
> 
>> That's where I think we focused too much on coding rather
>> than on establishing a healthy community.
> 
> We're doing great in this regard.  We've gotten several compliments  
> that we have focused on the right things and have done very well at  
> creating a great community.  They all came from non-committers too  
> who were happy with how much they felt welcomed included.  They all  
> sited it as the primary reason they wanted to participate more.
> 
> 
> I think we'll be in great shape if we continue to focus on our core  
> values that everyone's input matters, that you don't need commit to  
> be in the community, have a voice, or truly be included.
> 
> I think though that if we focus too much on the PMC topic, the net  
> result will be that people will feel that it's a much bigger deal  
> than it really is, that there is some injustice going on, that things  
> really aren't equal and their input doesn't matter as much as we say,  
> that even having commit isn't good enough, and that the PMC really  
> *is* the center of the project and not them nor even the committers.
> 
> The good news is that we're not there yet :)  Rick has stated he's  
> fine with our direction.  Matt now feels good and added his +1.  Jeff  
> seems to also agree all is well.  Usually a -1 creates more  
> negativity.  But I think it's also a sign of our strength that we can  
> talk through things and turn them positive.  And all the while we've  
> had this discussion on our public dev list instead of a private list.
> 
> We're in great shape, we just need to keep working together to keep  
> things this way.
> 
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 11:44 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> 
>> On 4/4/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok...so now I am confused.  From what I read, I see that as well.   
>>> But
>>> IIUC, the PPMC has somewhat disbanded less a "vote" on new
>>> members...again...am I missing something?
>>
>> I've been looking for some additional information on the PPMC and PMC,
>> but couldn't find any reference that would back up the statement of
>> forming PMC from the former PPMC. It simply does make sense. So, let
>> me think about the situation out loud.
>>
>> In our case, with Jeff, Matt, Rick who're with OpenEJB for a long time
>> and they're not on PPMC, it might mean that 1) PPMC has completely
>> forgotten to vote to invite them to PPMC, 2) PPMC has decided they are
>> not ready to be invited to PPMC yet.
>>
>> Either case doesn't sound good. It's us, the PPMC, who should've taken
>> an active role in taking care of people who did't fall into these
>> categories. That's where I think we focused too much on coding rather
>> than on establishing a healthy community. Well, it doesn't mean that
>> we don't have one, we do, but again - pointing out the names, Mohammad
>> and Manu were active enough, to be visible and by their activities
>> influenced the final decision about their invitation to become the
>> committers. Perhaps, if I'd spend more time on the project, I'd have
>> noticed it, but I think current activities around the project always
>> boiled down to my activity in discussions with no care of others less
>> involved in development activities who helped us, but might've felt
>> being excluded only because they're not actively coding. Shame on me!
>>
>> As you can see, I've got many doubts and lots of troubles figuring out
>> what road we should follow. Given that I feel that it was simply an
>> oversight and I should've stepped forward to discuss the issue
>> beforehand, I'd go ahead and...likely make a mistake that would
>> outlive the project - there would always be bad feelings about the
>> initial committers. On the other hand, if we stayed here and wait till
>> the situation is sorted out in the Incubator, how would that change
>> from the situation we'd graduate and do it later? Let's be honest,
>> what if PPMC didn't think they're ready for PPMC? Should that hinder
>> our graduation? These questions surely pop up in our heads and if it
>> happened in this project, it might completely grind down what we've
>> achieved so far.
>>
>> Hmm, I think I've got too much thinking about it and would appreciate
>> the others' comment on it. I don't like when people are unhappy so I'm
>> all ears to hear anything I should/could do to turn it around.
>>
>> (Oh how I wish Jeff had pointed it out before)
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>> -- 
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9835860
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

This is a good note.  I have just one comment on this part.

> That's where I think we focused too much on coding rather
> than on establishing a healthy community.

We're doing great in this regard.  We've gotten several compliments  
that we have focused on the right things and have done very well at  
creating a great community.  They all came from non-committers too  
who were happy with how much they felt welcomed included.  They all  
sited it as the primary reason they wanted to participate more.


I think we'll be in great shape if we continue to focus on our core  
values that everyone's input matters, that you don't need commit to  
be in the community, have a voice, or truly be included.

I think though that if we focus too much on the PMC topic, the net  
result will be that people will feel that it's a much bigger deal  
than it really is, that there is some injustice going on, that things  
really aren't equal and their input doesn't matter as much as we say,  
that even having commit isn't good enough, and that the PMC really  
*is* the center of the project and not them nor even the committers.

The good news is that we're not there yet :)  Rick has stated he's  
fine with our direction.  Matt now feels good and added his +1.  Jeff  
seems to also agree all is well.  Usually a -1 creates more  
negativity.  But I think it's also a sign of our strength that we can  
talk through things and turn them positive.  And all the while we've  
had this discussion on our public dev list instead of a private list.

We're in great shape, we just need to keep working together to keep  
things this way.


-David


On Apr 3, 2007, at 11:44 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:

> On 4/4/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok...so now I am confused.  From what I read, I see that as well.   
>> But
>> IIUC, the PPMC has somewhat disbanded less a "vote" on new
>> members...again...am I missing something?
>
> I've been looking for some additional information on the PPMC and PMC,
> but couldn't find any reference that would back up the statement of
> forming PMC from the former PPMC. It simply does make sense. So, let
> me think about the situation out loud.
>
> In our case, with Jeff, Matt, Rick who're with OpenEJB for a long time
> and they're not on PPMC, it might mean that 1) PPMC has completely
> forgotten to vote to invite them to PPMC, 2) PPMC has decided they are
> not ready to be invited to PPMC yet.
>
> Either case doesn't sound good. It's us, the PPMC, who should've taken
> an active role in taking care of people who did't fall into these
> categories. That's where I think we focused too much on coding rather
> than on establishing a healthy community. Well, it doesn't mean that
> we don't have one, we do, but again - pointing out the names, Mohammad
> and Manu were active enough, to be visible and by their activities
> influenced the final decision about their invitation to become the
> committers. Perhaps, if I'd spend more time on the project, I'd have
> noticed it, but I think current activities around the project always
> boiled down to my activity in discussions with no care of others less
> involved in development activities who helped us, but might've felt
> being excluded only because they're not actively coding. Shame on me!
>
> As you can see, I've got many doubts and lots of troubles figuring out
> what road we should follow. Given that I feel that it was simply an
> oversight and I should've stepped forward to discuss the issue
> beforehand, I'd go ahead and...likely make a mistake that would
> outlive the project - there would always be bad feelings about the
> initial committers. On the other hand, if we stayed here and wait till
> the situation is sorted out in the Incubator, how would that change
> from the situation we'd graduate and do it later? Let's be honest,
> what if PPMC didn't think they're ready for PPMC? Should that hinder
> our graduation? These questions surely pop up in our heads and if it
> happened in this project, it might completely grind down what we've
> achieved so far.
>
> Hmm, I think I've got too much thinking about it and would appreciate
> the others' comment on it. I don't like when people are unhappy so I'm
> all ears to hear anything I should/could do to turn it around.
>
> (Oh how I wish Jeff had pointed it out before)
>
> Jacek
>
> -- 
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>]

On 4/4/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:

> Ok...so now I am confused.  From what I read, I see that as well.  But
> IIUC, the PPMC has somewhat disbanded less a "vote" on new
> members...again...am I missing something?

I've been looking for some additional information on the PPMC and PMC,
but couldn't find any reference that would back up the statement of
forming PMC from the former PPMC. It simply does make sense. So, let
me think about the situation out loud.

In our case, with Jeff, Matt, Rick who're with OpenEJB for a long time
and they're not on PPMC, it might mean that 1) PPMC has completely
forgotten to vote to invite them to PPMC, 2) PPMC has decided they are
not ready to be invited to PPMC yet.

Either case doesn't sound good. It's us, the PPMC, who should've taken
an active role in taking care of people who did't fall into these
categories. That's where I think we focused too much on coding rather
than on establishing a healthy community. Well, it doesn't mean that
we don't have one, we do, but again - pointing out the names, Mohammad
and Manu were active enough, to be visible and by their activities
influenced the final decision about their invitation to become the
committers. Perhaps, if I'd spend more time on the project, I'd have
noticed it, but I think current activities around the project always
boiled down to my activity in discussions with no care of others less
involved in development activities who helped us, but might've felt
being excluded only because they're not actively coding. Shame on me!

As you can see, I've got many doubts and lots of troubles figuring out
what road we should follow. Given that I feel that it was simply an
oversight and I should've stepped forward to discuss the issue
beforehand, I'd go ahead and...likely make a mistake that would
outlive the project - there would always be bad feelings about the
initial committers. On the other hand, if we stayed here and wait till
the situation is sorted out in the Incubator, how would that change
from the situation we'd graduate and do it later? Let's be honest,
what if PPMC didn't think they're ready for PPMC? Should that hinder
our graduation? These questions surely pop up in our heads and if it
happened in this project, it might completely grind down what we've
achieved so far.

Hmm, I think I've got too much thinking about it and would appreciate
the others' comment on it. I don't like when people are unhappy so I'm
all ears to hear anything I should/could do to turn it around.

(Oh how I wish Jeff had pointed it out before)

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Alrighty, something was not jiving with me and so I went back through
> the archives and for some reason a few of the e-mail in the thread never
> made it to me.  It looks like, based on Brett's response in the discuss
> thread that the normal incubator policy is to go forward with the
> existing PPMC.  So, for my part I'm cool and will upgrade my vote to a
> +1.  Thanks for the clarification.
> 

Ok...so now I am confused.  From what I read, I see that as well.  But
IIUC, the PPMC has somewhat disbanded less a "vote" on new
members...again...am I missing something?


> Heh, I like the idea of PMC == committers as a goal as it really does
> make no distinction and everyone owns the project.
> 

+1000


> Good luck.
> 
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

On Apr 3, 2007, at 7:47 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

>
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for  
>>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the  
>>> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In  
>>> the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be  
>>> added and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really  
>>> caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance  
>>> in how incubator does these things.
>>
>> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our  
>> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over time.
>>
>> Doing the PMC == commit thing is interesting, but no Apache  
>> project has ever done that and don't really know that'd I'd want  
>> to be the first, especially as we've done so well at keeping the  
>> dev list as our "center of gravity".
>
> Alrighty, something was not jiving with me and so I went back  
> through the archives and for some reason a few of the e-mail in the  
> thread never made it to me.  It looks like, based on Brett's  
> response in the discuss thread that the normal incubator policy is  
> to go forward with the existing PPMC.  So, for my part I'm cool and  
> will upgrade my vote to a +1.  Thanks for the clarification.

I spent quite a bit of time re-reading e-mails last night and finally  
posted a question to general to get a clarification on the PMC  
formation and it seems there really is no hard and fast rule.  Its up  
to the project.  Re-reading Brett's e-mail he was merely pointiing  
out that the list was about the status of the group and that the  
proposed list was for the PMC and that committers retain their  
status.  It was not a policy statement.  As such, given the amount of  
discussion in the community and requests to expand the PMC I think  
that this issue should be addressed before we graduate as it  
certainly shows the community working together to come to an  
agreeable outcome.

>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:

>
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for  
>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the  
>> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In  
>> the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be  
>> added and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really  
>> caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance  
>> in how incubator does these things.
>
> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our  
> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over time.
>
> Doing the PMC == commit thing is interesting, but no Apache project  
> has ever done that and don't really know that'd I'd want to be the  
> first, especially as we've done so well at keeping the dev list as  
> our "center of gravity".

Alrighty, something was not jiving with me and so I went back through  
the archives and for some reason a few of the e-mail in the thread  
never made it to me.  It looks like, based on Brett's response in the  
discuss thread that the normal incubator policy is to go forward with  
the existing PPMC.  So, for my part I'm cool and will upgrade my vote  
to a +1.  Thanks for the clarification.

Heh, I like the idea of PMC == committers as a goal as it really does  
make no distinction and everyone owns the project.

Good luck.

>
>
> -David
>
>
>
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for  
> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the  
> list.  I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In the  
> other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be added  
> and that request was missed somehow.  That is what really caused me  
> to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance in how  
> incubator does these things.

The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our  
Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri).  Then people were added over time.

Doing the PMC == commit thing is interesting, but no Apache project  
has ever done that and don't really know that'd I'd want to be the  
first, especially as we've done so well at keeping the dev list as  
our "center of gravity".


-David

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for them  
to offer to help rather than having one person define the list.  I'm  
not sure of the precedent in incubator for this.  In the other thread  
Jacek had specifically requested two people be added and that request  
was missed somehow.  That is what really caused me to move to a +0  
but that was probably more my ignorance in how incubator does these  
things.

On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:34 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> If Apache were to pass a by-law saying PMCs are no longer required,  
> I'd be the first person to resign from it.  However we have to have  
> a PMC for legal oversight reasons and will continue to add people  
> to it, but I personally really hope it never becomes the "core" of  
> our community.  I hope that the core always remains right here on  
> the dev list where everyone, committer or not, can participate.
>

Perhaps your advocating PMC == commit which works too.  (if people  
are willing to exercise oversight)

>
> We have done an excellent job in this community at making sure we  
> all feel like we make a difference here, that someone without  
> commit privileges has just as much voice as someone with commit.   
> Several people, committers and otherwise have stood up and said  
> so.  I think it would be a terrible tragedy to start defining the  
> word community as those on the PMC and to say anyone not on the PMC  
> are being ostracize and not part of the community.

I think what caught people off guard was the proposed list.  It setup  
an artificial barrier I think; not your intent I'm sure.

>
> I'm personally happy with the progress we've made for ourselves and  
> am fine adding more people to it over time.

Yup, the community has done a bang up job.

>
> How do others feel?
>
>
> -David
>
>
>
>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Hi David,

You have not responded, could you please answer my questions I asked?

Also, per your previous email in this thread to Jacek, all is not well
from my perspective and I am sticking to my -1 until we get resolution.

Thanks,

Jeff

Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
> David Blevins wrote:
>> If Apache were to pass a by-law saying PMCs are no longer required, I'd
>> be the first person to resign from it.  However we have to have a PMC
>> for legal oversight reasons and will continue to add people to it, but I
>> personally really hope it never becomes the "core" of our community.  I
>> hope that the core always remains right here on the dev list where
>> everyone, committer or not, can participate.
>>
> 
> So then are you proposing that committer == pmc?  This seems like it
> fits your definition and would likely fix this issue.  Do you see a
> valid reason to have a smaller subset?
> 
>> We have done an excellent job in this community at making sure we all
>> feel like we make a difference here, that someone without commit
>> privileges has just as much voice as someone with commit.  Several
>> people, committers and otherwise have stood up and said so.  I think it
>> would be a terrible tragedy to start defining the word community as
>> those on the PMC and to say anyone not on the PMC are being ostracize
>> and not part of the community.
> 
> So then how would you categorize who got chosen to be on the PMC, and
> who did not?
> 
>> I'm personally happy with the progress we've made for ourselves and am
>> fine adding more people to it over time.
>>
>> How do others feel?
> 
> I am not sure what you are asking...
> 
> What I do see is we have done well so far.  Where I am left scratching
> my head is how this initial group of committers/contributors got picked.
>  What I also see, is concern raised by a few folks that they were not a
> part of this initial group.  There are clearly some hurt feelings here.
> 
> I see Rick and myself raising the issue of why we are not on the list.
> I saw Jacek advocate that all parties be included.  I must have missed
> the email somewhere how the subset got chosen.  Somehow we went from the
> PPMC consisting of Henry, Jason, and Brett, of whom would vote on
> additional members, to this list being chosen.  Was there a vote for the
> aforementioned list and is there a reason the others were not included?
> 
> On the other hand, I certainly do not want to have to beg my way on to
> the PMC.  If you and the other committers feel that the subset is the
> way to go, I will not comment further...the community gets what the
> community wants.  But IMHO, based on the responses and comments on this
> topic, it seems like a bad choice, and a bad way to start, and I
> certainly feel very uncomfortable with the way this has unfolded.
> 
> Jeff
> 
>>
>> -David
>>
>>

Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

David Blevins wrote:
> If Apache were to pass a by-law saying PMCs are no longer required, I'd
> be the first person to resign from it.  However we have to have a PMC
> for legal oversight reasons and will continue to add people to it, but I
> personally really hope it never becomes the "core" of our community.  I
> hope that the core always remains right here on the dev list where
> everyone, committer or not, can participate.
> 

So then are you proposing that committer == pmc?  This seems like it
fits your definition and would likely fix this issue.  Do you see a
valid reason to have a smaller subset?

> 
> We have done an excellent job in this community at making sure we all
> feel like we make a difference here, that someone without commit
> privileges has just as much voice as someone with commit.  Several
> people, committers and otherwise have stood up and said so.  I think it
> would be a terrible tragedy to start defining the word community as
> those on the PMC and to say anyone not on the PMC are being ostracize
> and not part of the community.

So then how would you categorize who got chosen to be on the PMC, and
who did not?

> 
> I'm personally happy with the progress we've made for ourselves and am
> fine adding more people to it over time.
> 
> How do others feel?

I am not sure what you are asking...

What I do see is we have done well so far.  Where I am left scratching
my head is how this initial group of committers/contributors got picked.
 What I also see, is concern raised by a few folks that they were not a
part of this initial group.  There are clearly some hurt feelings here.

I see Rick and myself raising the issue of why we are not on the list.
I saw Jacek advocate that all parties be included.  I must have missed
the email somewhere how the subset got chosen.  Somehow we went from the
PPMC consisting of Henry, Jason, and Brett, of whom would vote on
additional members, to this list being chosen.  Was there a vote for the
aforementioned list and is there a reason the others were not included?

On the other hand, I certainly do not want to have to beg my way on to
the PMC.  If you and the other committers feel that the subset is the
way to go, I will not comment further...the community gets what the
community wants.  But IMHO, based on the responses and comments on this
topic, it seems like a bad choice, and a bad way to start, and I
certainly feel very uncomfortable with the way this has unfolded.

Jeff

> 
> 
> -David
> 
> 

Re: Re: Discuss initial list, was Re: [vote] Request Graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

If Apache were to pass a by-law saying PMCs are no longer required,  
I'd be the first person to resign from it.  However we have to have a  
PMC for legal oversight reasons and will continue to add people to  
it, but I personally really hope it never becomes the "core" of our  
community.  I hope that the core always remains right here on the dev  
list where everyone, committer or not, can participate.


We have done an excellent job in this community at making sure we all  
feel like we make a difference here, that someone without commit  
privileges has just as much voice as someone with commit.  Several  
people, committers and otherwise have stood up and said so.  I think  
it would be a terrible tragedy to start defining the word community  
as those on the PMC and to say anyone not on the PMC are being  
ostracize and not part of the community.

I'm personally happy with the progress we've made for ourselves and  
am fine adding more people to it over time.

How do others feel?


-David