On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Leo Simons <lsim...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > On Aug 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>> This is, by-the-way, why active committers should want to become PMC >>> members, to get the binding votes aligned to who is doing the work. The >>> ratio PMC member / committer in this project scares me. >> >> I am curious why it scares you. It doesn't seem terribly out of the >> norm. CloudStack clearly isn't 1:1, or even 2:1 of some projects, but >> we aren't at the high end of the spectrum either. >> >> For comparison here are some other Committer/PMC differences: >> CloudStack 96 committers, 29 PMC members 3.31 CtP >> Subversion 78 committers, 43 PMC members 1.81 CtP >> Hadoop 96 committers, 51 PMC members 1.88 CtP >> Struts 56 committers, 17 PMC members 5.06 CtP >> Spamassassin 26 Committers, 7 PMC members, 3.71 CtP >> OpenOffice 140 committers, 27 PMC members, 5.19 CtP >> httpd 110 committers, 55 PMC members 2.00 CtP >> xalan 54 committers, 7 PMC members, 7.71 CtP >> WS 223 committers, 41 PMC members 5.43 CtP >> TomEE 28 committers, 8 PMC members, 3.50 CtP > > Ha, that’s a nice list. Thanks David! > > It was my perception things were way more skewed, I guess because we seem to > have no shortage of active committers but there seem to be a much more > limited amounts of votes coming through on, say, releases. Good to be set > straight. > > At some point jakarta was a few hundred committers and 7 PMC members, and > that mostly worked out fine, so “scared” would be way too strong a word > anyway. >
Ha - well - Jakarta went the way of the attic (except for the projects that became independent) so I am not sure that we want to emulate Jakarta :) --David
