incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "P. Taylor Goetz" <>
Subject Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation
Date Wed, 04 Nov 2015 23:03:48 GMT

On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <> wrote:

>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <>
>> wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <> wrote:
>>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
>>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
>>> about the project in general.
>>> I took a look.
>>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new committers,
>>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all about
>>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go the
>>> Committer != PPMC route.
>>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is
>>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer ==
>>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that point
>> it
>>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From that
>>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there were no
>>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers to
>> the
>>> PMC role.
>>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be any
>>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
>>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial committers
>>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project unable
>>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they understand
>> the
>>> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
> Background: I am a Sentry community member.
> I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new PPMC
> members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also
> encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become PPMC
> members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the last
> Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no progress
> here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a
> better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are  also encouraging
> others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and really
> striving to build a community around the project.

Fair enough.

Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go with Committer != PMC over
Committer == PMC?

From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a single commit, without any
public discussion, which speaks to the concerns others have raised about decisions being made
in private.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message