Re: PPMC guidance on new committers

[Craig L Russell]

Hi Bill,






I'll take another stab at updating the ppmc guidance.

Thanks,

Craig

On May 31, 2007, at 1:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

Thanks for clarifying your position. This is a bit of a surprise, since I thought I was just elaborating existing practice as documented in the ppmc guide. The section in question had been in the guides/ppmc for as long as I've been at Apache, and I missed any dialog regarding this issue earlier.

Craig L Russell wrote:

Hi Bill,

On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

Craig L Russell wrote:

o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator

with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's

incubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a
committer.

general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of getting the required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is embarrassing to have a public vote fail or take a very long time because not enough

I'm strongly against this.

I'm sorry I can't tell what you are against, even after reading the
following.


option?

Are you suggesting that we should no ever recommend this as a possible

Correct.

If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you missed the issue.


to reject a committer on a public list.

The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational to have

That's why I included "This is a good approach if you are
<strong>sure</strong> of getting the
required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members".

that's a good idea!  Jeremy would make a great committer!"


coders in their specific development arena.

Does this mean 4 of you were sitting at a hackathon table and decided, "HEY, Did that raise a chance for others to point out why Jeremy wasn't accepted or was actually kicked from committer status on Project X, or raise other concerns? It doesn't matter if you know three people who agree, the point is that it's for all PMC members to consider. And that a public vote will undercut an honest dialog about that contributor's readiness to become a committer or PPMC member. That includes the opinions, even if they are not binding, of the PPMC members who have probably had longer contact with I've been there, in a very unusual way - raising an objection to a "good soul" of the ASF membership, a reader of a private PMC list, who had quite honestly not earned local-merit to that project. We are all adults, and that didn't turn out 1/10th as badly as it could have, but it sensitized me to this issue. Many with objections simply would not/did not speak up. I'm sure Jakarta participants can relate similarly uncomfortable instances.

Are you suggesting that this approach is never good?

Correct.

Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature