I don't think that's the question on the table. Typically, podlings make committers == PPMC members. The reasoning being that the only thing a PPMC member can do is vote on adding new members. Other votes are all non-binding (unless you're an IPMC member). It also helps promote the synergy needed to become a TLP, forming a strong PMC.
John On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:27 PM Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never > considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help > clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the > result of any decision being made. > > Thanks, > Lenni > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and > > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions > > >>> about the project in general. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I took a look. > > >>> > > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new > committers, > > >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all > about > > >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go > the > > >>> Committer != PPMC route. > > >>> > > >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is > > >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer > > == > > >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that > point > > >> it > > >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From > > that > > >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there > were > > no > > >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers > to > > >> the > > >>> PMC role. > > >>> > > >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be > any > > >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s > > >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial > > committers > > >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project > > unable > > >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they > understand > > >> the > > >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC. > > > > > > Background: I am a Sentry community member. > > > > > > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new PPMC > > > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also > > > encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become > PPMC > > > members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the last > > > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no > progress > > > here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a > > > better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are also > > encouraging > > > others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and > really > > > striving to build a community around the project. > > > > Fair enough. > > > > Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go with > > Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC? > > > > From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a single > > commit, without any public discussion, which speaks to the concerns > others > > have raised about decisions being made in private. > > > > -Taylor > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
