Rich, I largely agree with what you're saying about not making arbitrary rules/guidelines that exclude, but I don't think this document should impose any form of restrictions.
I believe this should not be framed as "rules" or even "guidelines" as it should be informative about the considerations and thought process and help guide the discussion, but there should be no explicit limitations on who is nominated, the considerations made when discussing the nominee, or requirements imposed on how PMC members vote. The focus should be on the discussion of the individual's merit and what is in the best interest of the project, not based on rules imposed. -Dan On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 6:17 AM Rich Bowen <rbo...@apache.org> wrote: > Once again, please understand that I'm an outsider, and have no vote here, > but have a few years of experience with Apache communities, and so have a > lot of opinions. Forgive me if I wax philosophical. > > First of all, framing this document as guidelines, rather than rules, is > the right approach. If this is viewed as rules, we have seen in other > projects where these kinds of rules are used to exclude people who do not > exactly match the profile defined, and that impoverishes community. Setting > guidelines helps new contributors to know what to strive towards, which is > very important for goal-setting. But it can also make some contributors - > particularly those who are less confident, say "that's not me, why even > try?" > > As written, this document excludes almost any non-code contributor ever > becoming a committer and/or PMC member, and that would be to the great > detriment of the project. I am concerned that if you don't intentionally > address that, you will be excluding a lot of very valuable contributors > from ever even trying. I am very concerned that your rules will bias > towards selecting only people that look a lot like you, in terms of being > full-time software developers at big companies, and miss more casual, > passion-driven contributors. > > I'm also very concerned any time I see a PMC crafting "you must be this > tall to ride" documentation, rather than viewing their role, primarily, as > being the ones who should be recruiting and mentoring their successors. I > am still here at the ASF, nearly 30 years later, because someone approached > me and encouraged me to do more, rather than someone telling me I hadn't > done enough yet. The distinction is subtle, but important. Each and every > PMC member should be actively looking for the next person that they *get > to* nominate. > > Don't get me wrong, guidelines (and rules) are important to set > expectations. But PMC members (each and every one of them!) must feel at > liberty to nominate, and advocate for, any member of the community in whom > they see *promise*, because taking a risk on someone, ane encouraging them > towards ownership, is what builds strong communities - not *just* crafting > specific metrics that someone must hit. > > I will say that, 100%, with rules like this, I would never have become a > committer on any project, and would not be here today. > > On 2024/06/25 18:10:43 Jack Ye wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Here is a draft proposal for the guidelines for committership and PMC > > membership: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ka0F9Cn0QeL3IJbds3aGyz3XLnzlS5khoY5B8yogA8E/edit >
