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?
Regards,
Alan
