incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Beam podling graduation readiness
Date Sun, 04 Dec 2016 16:34:31 GMT
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:13 AM Frances Perry <>

> In addition, since its not called out on your project page, which of these
> > are current PPMC members and which are just committers?  Everyone is
> listed
> > as committer on .
> You can find the PPMC/committer distinction on the Beam site:

Perfect responses on everything below.  Sounds good.

I hate to be a PITA about it, but can you merge into ?  This way we have a clear
call out about who is on the PPMC right now.

> I'm a bit
> > worried about the "private/indirectly" comment made somewhere else (not
> > mixing public/private emails...)
> There are folks on the PPMC who were not active during incubation and have
> chosen to decline going forwards. I believe Davor's "private/indirect"
> comment referred to an offline discussion I had. There was an original PPMC
> member who never even signed up for the Beam mailing lists. I wanted to
> make sure he was aware call for folks to opt in to the resolution, so I
> told him in person to make sure he didn't miss a chance to respond in the
> affirmative.
> > If you include committers, that adds representation from DataTorrent and
> > > Smoking Hand, reducing Google representation to 53%.
> > >
> > >
> > I feel like this number.. the fact that it's being counted is a bit odd.
> > While we want to make sure the community is diverse, I would be hesitant
> to
> > add people just because it counters Google's direct influence on the
> > project.  Even if Google only makes up 20% of a proposed PMC, if it's
> > housing 90% of the active developers on the project that would still
> give a
> > single company higher influence.
> >
> I calculated this number for Beam when it came up during Geode's graduation
> discussion as something this group may pay attention to. Just trying to
> save folks the effort of digging it up themselves if interested ;-)
> I totally agree that affiliation is not a reason to add someone. But I do
> think that this is a sign of increasing diversity within the project when
> new folks from other projects and companies continue to get involved and
> make significant contributions.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message