incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: PPMC guidance on new committers
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:18:20 GMT
Hi Bill,

Thanks for clarifying your position. This is a bit of a surprise,  
since I thought I was just elaborating existing practice as  
documented in the ppmc guide.

The section in question had been in the guides/ppmc for as long as  
I've been at Apache, and I missed any dialog regarding this issue  

I'll take another stab at updating the ppmc guidance.



On May 31, 2007, at 1:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
>> On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>> o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
>>>> general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote  
>>>> email
>>>> with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's
>>>> developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of  
>>>> getting the
>>>> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is  
>>>> embarrassing
>>>> to have a public vote fail or take a very long time because not  
>>>> enough
>>>> incubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a
>>>> committer.
>>> I'm strongly against this.
>> I'm sorry I can't tell what you are against, even after reading the
>> following.
>> Are you suggesting that we should no ever recommend this as a  
>> possible
>> option?
> Correct.
>>> If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you missed the issue.
>>> The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational  
>>> to have
>>> to reject a committer on a public list.
>> That's why I included "This is a good approach if you are
>> <strong>sure</strong> of getting the
>> required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members".
> Does this mean 4 of you were sitting at a hackathon table and  
> decided, "HEY,
> that's a good idea!  Jeremy would make a great committer!"
> Did that raise a chance for others to point out why Jeremy wasn't  
> accepted
> or was actually kicked from committer status on Project X, or raise  
> other
> concerns?  It doesn't matter if you know three people who agree,  
> the point
> is that it's for all PMC members to consider.  And that a public  
> vote will
> undercut an honest dialog about that contributor's readiness to  
> become a
> committer or PPMC member.  That includes the opinions, even if they  
> are
> not binding, of the PPMC members who have probably had longer  
> contact with
> coders in their specific development arena.
> I've been there, in a very unusual way - raising an objection to a  
> "good
> soul" of the ASF membership, a reader of a private PMC list, who  
> had quite
> honestly not earned local-merit to that project.  We are all  
> adults, and
> that didn't turn out 1/10th as badly as it could have, but it  
> sensitized
> me to this issue.  Many with objections simply would not/did not  
> speak up.
> I'm sure Jakarta participants can relate similarly uncomfortable  
> instances.
>> Are you suggesting that this approach is never good?
> Correct.
> Bill
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
408 276-5638
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message