PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the codebase, which is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar" should be. It's about trust. If you trust someone to work the gears on a release, that has considerable impact on the well-being of a project, and personally meets my definition of "belongs on the PMC".
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Lenni. If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth, > he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination problems. > Coming to agreement on things like what to include in a release for > instance, > which jiras get punted to which release schedules, etc, it's hard to see > the rhyme > or reason why these things are happening with the timing you are using. > > I'm perfectly personally satisfied with the manner in which tickets are > being resolved, > but am inclined to trust Joe's instincts that more prior discussion about > planning and > such should be taking place on-list. David has echoed these concerns as > well. > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Joe. That was a powerful read and very inspiring. This should be >> posted on a wiki someplace. >> >> I agree. This seems like an important topic to revisit on our list to see >> how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics (big, >> small, new, old) more frequently moving forward. >> >> Thanks, >> Lenni >> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Thanks Chris. So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the position >> > that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining the >> > incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now >> includes >> > new committers and new community members following along for which their >> > voices have not been heard from on this matter. Once you recognize that >> > the >> > community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut like >> this >> > on- >> > list. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < >> > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 to the below. >> > > >> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >> > > Chief Architect >> > > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >> > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >> > > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >> > > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov >> > > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >> > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> >> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" < >> general@incubator.apache.org> >> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM >> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> >> > > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and >> > > graduation >> > > >> > > >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything >> here, >> > > >including past decisions. >> > > >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we >> try >> > to >> > > >move with near >> > > >unanimous consent. It is generally hard to figure out what roles >> people >> > > >have without some formal >> > > >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it. >> > > > >> > > >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really >> shouldn't >> > > >matter what roles people have >> > > >unless we need to be looking at a release. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't >> capable >> > of >> > > >> considering anything. >> > > >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the >> PPMC >> > or >> > > >> the community, all >> > > >> of which requires some discussion over time about any position >> being >> > > >> taken. I would consider >> > > >> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a >> situation >> > > >> like this or other related >> > > >> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time. >> > > >> >> > > >> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of >> > the >> > > >> project. That is why >> > > >> we have communication channels in the first place and generally >> refer >> > to >> > > >> on list decisions. >> > > >> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in >> > any >> > > >> consensus-based decision >> > > >> making. Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective >> > decision >> > > >> making requires >> > > >> open communication, preferably on public channels. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 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 >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
