I didn't see a thread get started on this topic yet but I've been
mulling this over for a bit so perhaps we can continue the discussion
in this thread?
I'm not sure that there should be a hard requirement for 3, 5 or n
unique committers. As a guideline I think three is a good working
number but the more important issue is the Incubator PMC's
understanding of the community as they've conducted themselves and the
iPMC's collective view on the project's viability going forward. This
is an ASF wide issue but the Incubator is the gateway for healthy
communities to be brought into the ASF so my context for this
discussion is the Incubator.
The reason I make this comment is I recently changed roles at my
company and will be investing less time in Geronimo than I was
previously. This doesn't change my desire to participate and work on
the project, it changes the amount of time I have to participate :)
For the record, I work for IBM but have no stake in Tuscany one way or
the other from an IBM perspective (heh, my new role is playing with
hardware and virtualization technology) and generally I tend to be
more critical of IBM heavy projects so I can do my best to have a
balanced view (perhaps even leaning a little against IBM).
With this recent change in my role it occurred to me that my
affiliation with the Geronimo is more about my personal interest in
the project as opposed to it being part of a job requirement.
Certainly not all committers are in that same position so we can't
simply assume that everyone's interest in a project is a personal
passion either. The point being that our confidence in a project
should be based on the individuals and their behaviours rather than a
hard and fast affiliation requirement; which does change over time.
As far as Tuscany is concerned, the community has been chugging for
quite some time and it appears that they are not losing steam (sure
they can later, but so can every project when its goals are met).
They've weathered some challenging storms (a fork of the code base and
community normalization issues) and yet despite the challenges they
are still making progress. I think they are in pretty good shape and
I respect the opinion of the mentors which seem to indicate they are
satisfied as well.
My point is that we have sufficient evidence that the community
conducts itself well, can weather the storms and has a growing base of
interest. I think once they complete their resolution text (and with
their new committers ta boot) they should probably bring their vote
forward again.
Anyway, with my recent changes it caused me to think more about the
people than a set of requirements. IMO Jim and Noel expressing their
concern and causing this discussion and deeper inspection of the
project is the right process and makes a lot of sense.
Just my $0.02
On Oct 23, 2007, at 2:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Agred, community diversity is an ASF-wide issue, not only an
Incubator concern.
But, as there have been some constructive discussions about it here
recently, we might want to get the ball rolling by submitting some
concrete ideas to the ASF membership?
If we agree on that, I'll start a thread here to discuss a set of
guidelines about how we define and handle diversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
