You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> on 2016/09/27 11:25:40 UTC
Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the
"prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
list. etc etc
Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
communities.
But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors
who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed
to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and
the committership that results?
This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people
simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort
of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!"
BAM. It happens.
So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion +
Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note:
this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing
the project to the ASF)
???
Cheers,
-g
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/27/16, 8:38 AM, "gchase@gmail.com on behalf of Greg Chase"
<gchase@gmail.com on behalf of greg@gregchase.com> wrote:
>In Apache Geode, we are trying to be liberal about bringing in new
>committers. Anyone who shows an interest, and a series of well formatted
>pull requests that follow are code guidelines are pretty quickly nominated
>to become committers.
>
>This would make it very easy for emeritus contributors to become active
>again, as well as new diverse community members.
To me, it didn't seem right that if you had proven you could contribute
good code before the code was moved to Apache but weren't on the initial
list that you had to go through the "series of pull requests" gauntlet and
then a 72 hour vote in order to get your commit bit. I think that's why
we grind so much on the initial list: if you are not on it, lots of folks
want you to "re-earn" your merit inside the ASF. The quick-add path might
still take 72 hours for a vote, but at least you don't need to wait for a
series of pull requests to be accepted, while some other person who did
make the list can just start committing.
Since there can be a culling of the list at graduation time, there is
little risk to streamlining the commit bit for folks the community already
knows from before. All that person has to is actually show up with
something to commit and an ICLA, then there should be a vote where folks
say "oh yeah, that person has been a productive contributor" and then that
person gets an account and can commit their change.
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Greg Chase <gr...@gregchase.com>.
In Apache Geode, we are trying to be liberal about bringing in new
committers. Anyone who shows an interest, and a series of well formatted
pull requests that follow are code guidelines are pretty quickly nominated
to become committers.
This would make it very easy for emeritus contributors to become active
again, as well as new diverse community members.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> It is an interesting idea. I thought that the initial committers list
> provided the set of people who could define the merit to approve other new
> committers. The mentors may not be familiar enough with the technology
> and people to make the decision with the "Flavor" the community wants.
>
> The only sticking point I ran into in incubation was that folks felt the
> need to be "fair" and require anybody not on the initial list to provide a
> series of patches to show their commitment before voting them in. I'd
> rather have a "quick-add" for folks who have been past contributors. Then
> you could say the initial committers list should be 3 to 8 people, and
> they could just add someone who shows up with something they want to
> commit if that person is already in the commit history of the imported
> code without having to make them submit a patch and wait 72 hours or more
> for the vote.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 9/27/16, 7:44 AM, "Gregory Chase" <gc...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> >Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying
> >homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the
> >technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to
> >those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three
> >years, and a liberal policy of granting new committer privileges as
> >needed,
> >I think you should be ok. Does an emeritus committer need commit
> >privileges today? Only if they start committing again.
> >
> >And for those that want prestige - the prestige rests in being an active
> >evangelist of the project. One does not ever need to be a committer to
> >achieve prestige.
> >
> >On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Le 27/09/16 à 13:25, Greg Stein a écrit :
> >> > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has
> >>demonstrated a
> >> > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> >> > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for
> >>various
> >> > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want
> >> the
> >> > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on
> >>the
> >> > list. etc etc
> >> >
> >> > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> >> > communities.
> >> >
> >> > But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
> >> >
> >> > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the
> >> Champion/Mentors
> >> > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they
> >> supposed
> >> > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit,
> >> and
> >> > the committership that results?
> >> >
> >> > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
> >> > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where
> >>people
> >> > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is
> >> sort
> >> > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna
> >>join!"
> >> > BAM. It happens.
> >> >
> >> > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the
> >>Champion
> >> +
> >> > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit.
> >> (note:
> >> > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with
> >> bringing
> >> > the project to the ASF)
> >> >
> >> > ???
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > -g
> >> >
> >> Well, that's tempting...
> >>
> >>
> >> OTOH there is no problem with having an initial list, even with people
> >> who want to see their name on the web site for teh sake of their own ego
> >> : it's easy to demote committer in the long run (moving them to an
> >> emeritus status).
> >>
> >>
> >> We have so many dormant committers in so many projects anyway !
> >>
> >>
> >> My take is the initial list is just a curtesy made to the involved
> >> people, and a few more. Nothing less, nothing more. The PPMC list, OTOH,
> >> is critical.
> >>
> >>
> >> My 2 cts.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Greg Chase
> >
> >Global Head, Big Data Communities
> >http://www.pivotal.io/big-data
> >
> >Pivotal Software
> >http://www.pivotal.io/
> >
> >650-215-0477
> >@GregChase
> >Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
It is an interesting idea. I thought that the initial committers list
provided the set of people who could define the merit to approve other new
committers. The mentors may not be familiar enough with the technology
and people to make the decision with the "Flavor" the community wants.
The only sticking point I ran into in incubation was that folks felt the
need to be "fair" and require anybody not on the initial list to provide a
series of patches to show their commitment before voting them in. I'd
rather have a "quick-add" for folks who have been past contributors. Then
you could say the initial committers list should be 3 to 8 people, and
they could just add someone who shows up with something they want to
commit if that person is already in the commit history of the imported
code without having to make them submit a patch and wait 72 hours or more
for the vote.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 9/27/16, 7:44 AM, "Gregory Chase" <gc...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying
>homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the
>technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to
>those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three
>years, and a liberal policy of granting new committer privileges as
>needed,
>I think you should be ok. Does an emeritus committer need commit
>privileges today? Only if they start committing again.
>
>And for those that want prestige - the prestige rests in being an active
>evangelist of the project. One does not ever need to be a committer to
>achieve prestige.
>
>On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Le 27/09/16 à 13:25, Greg Stein a écrit :
>> > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has
>>demonstrated a
>> > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
>> > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for
>>various
>> > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want
>> the
>> > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on
>>the
>> > list. etc etc
>> >
>> > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
>> > communities.
>> >
>> > But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
>> >
>> > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the
>> Champion/Mentors
>> > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they
>> supposed
>> > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit,
>> and
>> > the committership that results?
>> >
>> > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
>> > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where
>>people
>> > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is
>> sort
>> > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna
>>join!"
>> > BAM. It happens.
>> >
>> > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the
>>Champion
>> +
>> > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit.
>> (note:
>> > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with
>> bringing
>> > the project to the ASF)
>> >
>> > ???
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > -g
>> >
>> Well, that's tempting...
>>
>>
>> OTOH there is no problem with having an initial list, even with people
>> who want to see their name on the web site for teh sake of their own ego
>> : it's easy to demote committer in the long run (moving them to an
>> emeritus status).
>>
>>
>> We have so many dormant committers in so many projects anyway !
>>
>>
>> My take is the initial list is just a curtesy made to the involved
>> people, and a few more. Nothing less, nothing more. The PPMC list, OTOH,
>> is critical.
>>
>>
>> My 2 cts.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Greg Chase
>
>Global Head, Big Data Communities
>http://www.pivotal.io/big-data
>
>Pivotal Software
>http://www.pivotal.io/
>
>650-215-0477
>@GregChase
>Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Wade Chandler <co...@wadechandler.com>.
On Sep 27, 2016 10:44 AM, "Gregory Chase" <gc...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying
> homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the
> technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to
> those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three
> years, and a liberal policy of granting new committer privileges as
needed,
> I think you should be ok. Does an emeritus committer need commit
> privileges today? Only if they start committing again.
>
> And for those that want prestige - the prestige rests in being an active
> evangelist of the project. One does not ever need to be a committer to
> achieve prestige.
>
I agree with Gregory's POV on this. It is open and easy to do. His email
could be the reference for how it should work IMO.
I will add my POV
The list is a tribute and a starting point for where the project "is" when
it comes to Apache. If it is already OSS, then why new merit? It came with
merit and that should continue; it isn't a vacuum. Otherwise it is
exclusive of merit. If not previously OSS, then the donators best know who
did what or who will initially carry on unless the intent is to no longer
be heavily involved in the project.
Obviously the project now has to operate for the ASF community, but a
project needs those who know it one way or another.
If new people want in, let them show a little effort for code, and in, as
long as they can write good bug free code with tests.
If they want status, without coding, then evangelism and users both are
always needed.
Stating the obvious, but we need coders, users, and evangelism to have a
successful project and community, and that seems common in OSS and
commercial alike. For OSS, we should be as open and inclusive as possible;
it's voluntary after all. The bar for merit should match.
Obviously if someone is doing anything malicious, ever, they are gone.
I think the issue this thread is trying to address is a lack of protocol. A
protocol can be simple and open as long as it states the rules and intent,
and is the thing which everyone defers. Perhaps that needs clarified in the
incubator process documents or better followed if there. There should not
be varying opinions when it comes time to onboard a new project.
If ever in need of change and review, then OK, processes can handle that.
Lacking a protocol, or if folks don't want one, then it should be
completely up to the mentors and sponsor to spell out what to do for their
podling. Otherwise you have various opportunity for contention with no
framework or fact, but subjective opinions of everyone involved even if
informed by experience. But, even that is managed to a degree by some
protocol in the mentor process.
Thanks
Wade
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Gregory Chase <gc...@pivotal.io>.
Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying
homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the
technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to
those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three
years, and a liberal policy of granting new committer privileges as needed,
I think you should be ok. Does an emeritus committer need commit
privileges today? Only if they start committing again.
And for those that want prestige - the prestige rests in being an active
evangelist of the project. One does not ever need to be a committer to
achieve prestige.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Le 27/09/16 à 13:25, Greg Stein a écrit :
> > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
> > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
> > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want
> the
> > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
> > list. etc etc
> >
> > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> > communities.
> >
> > But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
> >
> > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the
> Champion/Mentors
> > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they
> supposed
> > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit,
> and
> > the committership that results?
> >
> > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
> > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people
> > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is
> sort
> > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!"
> > BAM. It happens.
> >
> > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion
> +
> > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit.
> (note:
> > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with
> bringing
> > the project to the ASF)
> >
> > ???
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> Well, that's tempting...
>
>
> OTOH there is no problem with having an initial list, even with people
> who want to see their name on the web site for teh sake of their own ego
> : it's easy to demote committer in the long run (moving them to an
> emeritus status).
>
>
> We have so many dormant committers in so many projects anyway !
>
>
> My take is the initial list is just a curtesy made to the involved
> people, and a few more. Nothing less, nothing more. The PPMC list, OTOH,
> is critical.
>
>
> My 2 cts.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Greg Chase
Global Head, Big Data Communities
http://www.pivotal.io/big-data
Pivotal Software
http://www.pivotal.io/
650-215-0477
@GregChase
Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 27/09/16 � 13:25, Greg Stein a �crit :
> The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
> significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
> reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the
> "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
> list. etc etc
>
> Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> communities.
>
> But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
>
> This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors
> who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed
> to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and
> the committership that results?
>
> This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
> established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people
> simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort
> of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!"
> BAM. It happens.
>
> So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion +
> Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note:
> this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing
> the project to the ASF)
>
> ???
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
Well, that's tempting...
OTOH there is no problem with having an initial list, even with people
who want to see their name on the web site for teh sake of their own ego
: it's easy to demote committer in the long run (moving them to an
emeritus status).
We have so many dormant committers in so many projects anyway !
My take is the initial list is just a curtesy made to the involved
people, and a few more. Nothing less, nothing more. The PPMC list, OTOH,
is critical.
My 2 cts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
It's a radical proposal - but I think it would only work well where
the champion/mentors are also from same community - e.g. the kind of
"Already lots of Apache folks" projects that we previously suggested
for the straight-to-PLP mode. There's also the danger of the project
to seem hostile to non-Apache folks - and if the project has not
already have a well-working contributor model; then activity will die
out as it would have almost no committers.
But choreographed well by the mentors - who would then have to be
almost like a "project coach" - it could turn to a very open model as
everyone on the list would feel they have a large say of project
decisions. Some open source projects work well like this on GitHub
today - with a very small set of people using commit rights and all
activity done through pull requests.
Perhaps the radical mini-PMC model could be good for those - working
out who "is" and "isn't" a committer in ASF sense can be tricky for
such projects - as you would have to go through all the discussions on
all pull requests - code review and "helping" in design decisions is
also part of being a committer!
Just to note - one advantage of the "emeritus committers allowed" for
a long-standing community (e.g. Netbeans - although I think we're
happy with Netbeans proposal now!) is that those people will carry
with them history and opinions - and could still work well with the
PMC hat on even if they don't commit a single line of code - acting
almost like an Advisory Board for the project.
Another is that moving to Apache is not required to be a hard-reset -
so just as Apache projects don't tend to vote out dormant committers
(but they might voluntarily retire) - so if a long-running project
moves to ASF it should not have to 'shed' committers.
On 27 September 2016 at 16:43, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> +0.5 I like this idea a lot (but there are governance problems to be solved).
>
> I have long been frustrated at folks who jump on the bandwagon and become initial committers then play no further part in the project.
>
> Do inactive committers harm the project? No, of course they don’t. But it isn’t fair to those who get in by pulling their weight.
>
> Now, those inactive committers should be removed when the project graduates, right? No, in my experience they get to be PMC members. The project is too polite to throw people out (especially what they perceive as “Apache VIPs”).
>
> And while I’m on that topic: I believe that mentors should not automatically become PMC members when the project graduates.
>
> Julian
>
>
>> On Sep 27, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
>> significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
>> initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
>> reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the
>> "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
>> list. etc etc
>>
>> Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
>> communities.
>>
>> But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
>>
>> This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors
>> who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed
>> to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and
>> the committership that results?
>>
>> This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
>> established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people
>> simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort
>> of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!"
>> BAM. It happens.
>>
>> So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion +
>> Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note:
>> this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing
>> the project to the ASF)
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>.
+0.5 I like this idea a lot (but there are governance problems to be solved).
I have long been frustrated at folks who jump on the bandwagon and become initial committers then play no further part in the project.
Do inactive committers harm the project? No, of course they don’t. But it isn’t fair to those who get in by pulling their weight.
Now, those inactive committers should be removed when the project graduates, right? No, in my experience they get to be PMC members. The project is too polite to throw people out (especially what they perceive as “Apache VIPs”).
And while I’m on that topic: I believe that mentors should not automatically become PMC members when the project graduates.
Julian
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
> significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
> reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the
> "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
> list. etc etc
>
> Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> communities.
>
> But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
>
> This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors
> who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed
> to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and
> the committership that results?
>
> This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
> established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people
> simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort
> of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!"
> BAM. It happens.
>
> So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion +
> Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note:
> this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing
> the project to the ASF)
>
> ???
>
> Cheers,
> -g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
I like the idea, but isn't the initial list primarily a question for the
Secretary.
Is the Secretary ok with 1000 additional ICLAs arriving en masse from an
even larger project?
If so, then I think the solution is much simpler; *Let the podling decide*
if it is only Mentors, every user who has showed up at the project, or
anything in between. If the Secretary has workload issues with ICLAs, then
add a "max X" to the "let the podling decide". My guess is that the
Secretary would say Ok to up to 100, possibly much higher (it spreads out
over a few weeks). The less Incubator interferes the better, I think.
Niclas
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
> >
> > wrote:
> > >... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being
> > fully
> > > aware of an increased load...
> >
> > And as such might be an interesting filter to make sure mentors are
> > actually going to engage.
> >
>
> RIght. That was a bit of my thought: if the mentors aren't engaged enough
> to vote people in, then what are they doing there.(*)
>
> The basic concept can certainly be fiddled with. I see a couple ways:
> increased mentor count for the bootstrap work, and/or maybe set the initial
> list at (5) rather than (0).
>
> But back to (*), the mentors may only be there for *community*
> development/education. As stated elsethread, such mentors may not be
> properly equipped to evaluate merit for committership. That's a fair point
> which I had not considered. ... So you could maybe imagine (1) Champion,
> (3) Mentors, and (5) PPMC/committers to start any podling.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
> >... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being
> fully
> > aware of an increased load...
>
> And as such might be an interesting filter to make sure mentors are
> actually going to engage.
>
RIght. That was a bit of my thought: if the mentors aren't engaged enough
to vote people in, then what are they doing there.(*)
The basic concept can certainly be fiddled with. I see a couple ways:
increased mentor count for the bootstrap work, and/or maybe set the initial
list at (5) rather than (0).
But back to (*), the mentors may only be there for *community*
development/education. As stated elsethread, such mentors may not be
properly equipped to evaluate merit for committership. That's a fair point
which I had not considered. ... So you could maybe imagine (1) Champion,
(3) Mentors, and (5) PPMC/committers to start any podling.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being fully
> aware of an increased load...
And as such might be an interesting filter to make sure mentors are
actually going to engage.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>
>> For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans
>> mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit
>> them
>> once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release.
>
>
> In that regard, I'm not concerned about "the known knowns" and "the known
> unknowns". Those are OK, we'll work through them. Just like you, I imagine,
> I'm concerned about "the unknown unknowns":
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk
>
> On the other hand, I know we will cross those bridges when we get to them.
Agreed. I was only using it as an example of how difficult it may be to fully
estimate the commitment of time/effort for a mentor.
Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being fully
aware of an increased load.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans
> mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit
> them
> once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release.
In that regard, I'm not concerned about "the known knowns" and "the known
unknowns". Those are OK, we'll work through them. Just like you, I imagine,
I'm concerned about "the unknown unknowns":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk
On the other hand, I know we will cross those bridges when we get to them.
Gj
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
> > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
> > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want
> the
> > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
> > list. etc etc
> >
> > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> > communities.
> >
> > But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
> >
> > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the
> Champion/Mentors
> > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they
> supposed
> > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit,
> and
> > the committership that results?
>
> This! This requires a super engaged cast of Mentors that are actually
> willing to spend significant ammount of time down in the trenches.
> Unfortunately mentor availability (for even simple things like a report
> sign-off) has been a constant (although not as urgent these days)
> issue (*)
>
> With the right group of mentors -- I'm super +1 on this!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> (*) For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans
> mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit
> them
> once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
> significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
> reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the
> "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
> list. etc etc
>
> Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> communities.
>
> But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
>
> This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors
> who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed
> to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and
> the committership that results?
This! This requires a super engaged cast of Mentors that are actually
willing to spend significant ammount of time down in the trenches.
Unfortunately mentor availability (for even simple things like a report
sign-off) has been a constant (although not as urgent these days)
issue (*)
With the right group of mentors -- I'm super +1 on this!
Thanks,
Roman.
(*) For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans
mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit them
once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Its not a bad idea at all, except you're now relying on already stretched
too thin mentors to help bootstrap the podling.
And since we've agreed that champion can roll off once the podling has been
accepted (since they don't have to be a mentor) you're limiting that a bit
further.
John
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:01 AM Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Considering the effort that went into this and the fact that we had just
> reached a point where we could move on past this list, I hope you start
> using this new rule for the next project submitted.
>
> Pe marți, 27 septembrie 2016, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> a scris:
>
> > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
> > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
> > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want
> the
> > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
> > list. etc etc
> >
> > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> > communities.
> >
> > But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
> >
> > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the
> Champion/Mentors
> > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they
> supposed
> > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit,
> and
> > the committership that results?
> >
> > This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
> > established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people
> > simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is
> sort
> > of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!"
> > BAM. It happens.
> >
> > So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion
> +
> > Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit.
> (note:
> > this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with
> bringing
> > the project to the ASF)
> >
> > ???
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
>
>
> --
>
> --emi
>
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>.
Considering the effort that went into this and the fact that we had just
reached a point where we could move on past this list, I hope you start
using this new rule for the next project submitted.
Pe marți, 27 septembrie 2016, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> a scris:
> The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
> significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
> reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the
> "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
> list. etc etc
>
> Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> communities.
>
> But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
>
> This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors
> who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed
> to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and
> the committership that results?
>
> This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
> established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people
> simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort
> of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!"
> BAM. It happens.
>
> So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion +
> Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note:
> this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing
> the project to the ASF)
>
> ???
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
--
--emi
Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
In all honesty: What would I as a mentor do, to get the project
rolling? Obvious: Ask the mailing list for an "Initial committer
list". So, what's the point?
Jochen
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
> significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
> reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the
> "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
> list. etc etc
>
> Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> communities.
>
> But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
>
> This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the Champion/Mentors
> who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they supposed
> to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit, and
> the committership that results?
>
> This would also solve the problem of initial committers that have not
> established any merit whatsoever. We've had many situations where people
> simply add themselves to the list. Why? Cuz they chose to do so. It is sort
> of silently allowed for IPMC members to add themselves. "I wanna join!"
> BAM. It happens.
>
> So yeah. Radical thought: NO initial list. The PPMC is just the Champion +
> Mentors. They will build the committers and PPMC according to merit. (note:
> this could be *very* fast for a particular few highly-engaged with bringing
> the project to the ASF)
>
> ???
>
> Cheers,
> -g
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org