Hi everyone, I really appreciate this discussion! It highlights a topic close to my heart. While it might just be my personal perspective, I truly believe that as an organization, we should do everything we can to emphasize that "Titles" and "Levels" represent "Responsibility" rather than "Power" or a traditional "Promotion."
Whenever we frame a new level as a "promotion" where someone can simply "do more," we might risk softening the ver fabric of the Apache Way. It also makes it a bit easier for the system to be misconstrued by those seeking extra authority, power-grips and who are seeking control over other people. I also have a slightly different take on the concept of "trust" within a PMC or generally in a "professional" context. For me, trust is great but deeply personal, reserved for one-on-one relationships where we truly know someone's values. On an organizational or professional level, my background in security leads me to favor a "zero trust" approach: *never just assume, always verify. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_trust_architecture For example, in Airflow, we have reproducible package checks during releases where three independent PMC members verify the build. This isn't a sign of distrust toward our Release Manager; rather, it’s a safeguard to protect the community from external risks like compromised accounts, mental crises, blackmail, or unexpected crises. Since we hold a collective responsibility for the ASF, we rely on verification rather than personal trust to keep everyone safe. It is great personally to have friends we trust completely in our personal lives, but organizationally, we are caretakers for the whole community and we should not use our personal "trust" for that. To me, being a PMC member is servant leadership and a shared commitment, rather than a privilege. It means taking on a longer list of expectations, such as: - Serving the community by making thoughtful decisions together - Helping to resolve sensitive, private issues gracefully - Mindfully looking out for and guiding branding matters - Actively verifying releases to uphold the Apache Way - Collaborating on board reports and responding to security topics - Helping shape the project's long-term direction - and more When I was first invited to join a PMC, it felt amazing to be appreciated. But when I thought a bit and looked at "what it means," it took me some time to decide if I wanted to accept it. It felt less like receiving a promotion and more like a heartfelt "yes, I am glad to carry this responsibility for the team." I feel the same way about roles like Director, VP, or Chair—they are incredible opportunities to serve, and the ASF has, so far, been great at ensuring every single contributor has the power to make a difference without needing a specific label. So I do not see - and will never see any of those positions as positions of "power," but rather as a "responsibility to enable those individuals to do stuff". Of course, I realize this is quite an optimistic and idealistic view! In any community—whether it’s a global foundation, a local church, or the amateur choir (I happily sang with for 30 years in such a choir of amateurs)—people join with all kinds of motivations. Some may look for badges or professional leverage, some might be control freaks who want people to do what they want, some might have malicious intent, and some might have their own "business" to make - and that is just human nature. Idealists can only succeed if they realise that not everyone around them shares those ideals. And because we - like any other community - have such a diverse mix of people, it is imperative to have clear, supportive guardrails reminding us that positions are about servantship and meeting expectations. By keeping our focus on these shared responsibilities, and not powers and **expecting** those responsibilities to be fulfilled by the people who get "labels", we can protect the Apache Way for everyone. This is why I think even "suggesting" that PMC or any other level is some kind a promotion - is a bit dangerous. For me this is mostly "I agree to **serve** others" - and the moment someone "accepts" such a label/position, this is the moment I mostly start expecting this servantship from such people, I do not expect them to exercise their powers. They might **need** some powers (granted explicitly by the rules and guardrails - like PMC has binding votes for releases) - but as mentioned before - those are more of the "formalties" and making things more "organized" - and this is something that the organisation should have guardrails for. It's not giving people "more power and more position" - it's enabling them to serve the community better. Warmly, Jarek On Sun, Aug 2, 2026 at 6:08 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 22.07.2026 um 15:24 schrieb Rich Bowen: > > > >> On Jul 22, 2026, at 8:53 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 22 Jul 2026, at 12:46, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 05:02 Dirk-Willem van Gulik < > [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> First - I'd be wary of this as a concept - we are all volunteers -- > being > >>>> asked to join the PMC is both a trust thing -and- also something of an > >>>> imposition or burden on that volunteer. They get extra > responsibility and > >>>> work. So - really -- not a promotion at all. > >>> Surely that's literally what a promotion is? What's a job promotion - > more > >>> responsibility and work along with extra trust or privilege. > >> This may be a cultural/language thing - but for me, the word promotion, > is something akin to a higher step of a ladder, higher up in a hierarchy - > where your output, word, work, etc is of more value than that of others - > and where you get to command and delegate. Or when a call is to be made - > the one with the promition makes it - is -expected- to amke it. > > Yes. And that is exactly the case with committers and PMC members. And > we *explicitly* call it a ladder on the community.apache.org < > http://community.apache.org/> website. > https://community.apache.org/contributor-ladder.html This is language > that is used across the entire open source ecosystem. > > > > https://ospoglossary.todogroup.org/contributor-ladder/ > > > > > https://contribute.cncf.io/projects/best-practices/community/contributor-growth/incentivizing-contributors/ > > > > > https://forum.opensearch.org/t/proposal-contributor-ladder-aka-how-can-someone-become-a-maintainer/5759 > > > > I don’t see this as derogatory in any way. It’s encouragement for > contributors to become owners. It’s the incentive we offer for that > ownership. > > > > I don’t think any first-time contributor expects that their > contributions will be accepted blindly without skepticism. They have to > earn that trust. This is pretty central to our messaging at the ASF, and > always has been. Merit is earned. We use that phrasing everywhere and have > for decades. > > > > That does not mean, though, that the work is of more *value*, simply > that the trust hasn’t been earned yet. We *should* encourage people to earn > trust, and not expect that on day one they’ll be trusted with the reins. > They have to grow up to that. We all started at that level. > Maybe the main difference is power. In corporate world the classic > ladder entails that you gain hierarchical power over others. This is not > the case. The PMC is not the institution that is calling the shots. At > baseline the decision is done on dev. > You have kind of privilege for binding votes and unbinding. But if > unbinding votes are treated the same it is only a formal distinction. > > > >> They are sort of the opposite of a merit/expertise specialist of > volunteers all doing peer to peer what each is good at / contributes to. > > I disagree. Committers *do* have more merit, because they have > demonstrated and earned it. That’s what becoming a committer acknowledges. > I’m not sure why we would want to downplay that. > > > >>> Promotion never means that you're somehow a better or more valuable > person, > >>> does it? In what context would it mean that? > >> It may not mean that in American -- but to my foreign ear - that is > exactly how it echos - a person that is `somehow more, better, etc' > > Well, they are more. They have more trust, more merit, more experience, > and more ownership. > > > > “Better” is a loaded word here, and not one that I would use. But they > have demonstrated leadership, trust, and ownership. Those that do the work > *do* get to make the decisions. They *do* get more authority. They are, in > fact, more. That doesn’t mean that other contributors are somehow > incompetent or terrible or bad, just that they have not demonstrated that > ownership and trust yet. > > > > We use the phrase “those that do the work get to make the decisions” > across all of our ASF discussions, and, again, have for decades. The term > “Do-ocracy” is another one that we’ve used. Everyone has the opportunity to > get those promotions, they just haven’t yet. That doesn’t make them better > or worse. It makes them new or experienced. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
