On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > > >> Interesting reply - I'd been assuming that when an incubatee graduates > >> into an existing project, it's PPMC automatically get added to the > >> PMC. So I was a bit confused as to why Noel was even asking the > >> question. > >> > > > > Case-by-case basis. Personally I think it's a good idea, > > but there are lots of opinions. When Derby graduated, > > some of the PPMC was invited to the DB PMC, and more over > > time. > > > > And it's not just the PPMC/PMC issue; there's commit access, > > too. And I think that's thornier. > > > > If a podling graduates and joins an existing TLP, is it > > equitable for the people listed as committers on its > > proposal, with no accumulated Apache merit, to automatically > > keep commit access? While people who get involved directly > > with the parent TLP have to earn merit over months? > > > > That's the sort of scenario I was envisioning when I > > referred to 'fast-tracking' commit access. > > > > The answer is clearly, 'Maybe, maybe not,' and possibly relates > > to the amount of merit accumulated while in the podling. > > > > Do these really have to be "Apache" credits accumulated? Let's do a > hypothetical situation. Let's say that some guy puts in a few years of > his life into a CodeHaus project. Then, he has a kid. At that time the > project moves to ASF and he's MIA. Is it fair that he doesn't get > commit karma when it graduates? IMO, no, it is not fair. Is it fair > that he does not make it into the project PMC? Yes, it is fair, IMO. > > Not providing commit karma seems to be a bit like forced retirement > because of inactivity. Something that ASF frowns upon. > > Let's do another scenario. Someone works very long and hard on one > component of the project. That component becomes very mature and rock > solid so, we really don't hear from him very often. Is it fair that he > doesn't get commit karma when it graduates? IMO, no, it is not fair. > Is it fair that he does not make it into the project PMC? Yes, it is > fair, IMO. > > Not providing commit karma seems to be a bit like forced retirement > because he completed the task that he set out to do. > > So, what about the receiving community? If they voted to sponsor the > project, then they knew what the probable outcome would be, that the > group could become committers of their project. If no one inside that > community complained about it, would it be a fair assumption that the > group on a whole thought that the arrangement was equitable? Should we > care if both parties are happy?
Nicely put. I'm convinced - this definitely seems like a very good reason to have inactive committers following an incubated project through to either TLP stage, or into another TLP, but not being on the PMC. I'd be less convinced on a project that wasn't previously open so that there was no way to know if committers had previously contributed; but for open source projects who join the incubator this is a great point. In fact you've helped me resolve a direction on my general problem in this area at Jakarta where we have a huge number of inactive committers (300) and PMC members (40) - inactive committers good, inactive PMC members bad. Thanks, Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
