openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:50:04 GMT
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Shane Curcuru <> wrote:

> I had a few comments (I previously sent to another list) about PPMC vs.
> committer sets (i.e. either offering commit separately, or only in
> conjunction with PPMC membership):
> Note that making the distinction (or not) is strictly up to the project.
>  There are plenty of Apache projects on each side of this equation.
> ...
> Fundamentally, committers are people who are trusted to work on the code
> directly.  Note that in larger projects, there are sometimes social rules
> that determine which specific modules a committer is expected to work on;
> they usually work quite well once established.  I.e. a committer on the file
> system technically could commit everywhere, but is expected (socially) to
> submit patches to other code modules for review.
> ...
> PMC members are responsible for voting in new committers and/or PMC
> members, and ensuring releases are done properly under Apache rules.
> Typically they do have a broader scope within the project, but not
> necessarily; there are plenty of PMC members who have only ever worked in
> one module of a larger project - but who have also tested, voted on, and run
> releases of the whole project.  PMC members should also assist the PMC chair
> with creating board reports.
> Any committer can be a release manager, but only PMC members cast binding
> votes on confirming a software release itself.
> Personally, with such a large and diverse project, I think it would be
> useful to make the distinction between the two groups.  There are plenty of
> people who would be happy to just be involved as a committer - probably
> plenty who would really only be interested in committing to certain areas.
> To answer a question elsethread:
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a
>> more important discussion is what parts of the project might require
>> direct PPMC member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and
>> having appropriate transparency into all parts to provide oversight.
>> Do we need a PPMC member directly administrating forums and wikis? Do
>> we need the PPMC to provide a generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of
>> committers and other contributors filling roles within the Forum or
>> Wiki administration? Should the PPMC require certain parts of the
>> community to report status periodically?
>> Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of
>> special cases where Committer status only is appropriate. For example
>> and assuming that the User Forums choose to join this project, should
>> we require that all Admins be made into Committers and PPMC members,
>> or that we only need 3? Or something in between? (Leave aside the
>> iCLA question which could be handled of Terms of Use.)
> Personally, I don't see that Forum staff necessarily need to be on the
> PPMC; they don't need to vote on releases, so it's not necessary.  I would
> (hope) that some of the Forum staff (admins and possibly top moderators)
> would be invited to the PPMC because of their influence on the project and
> their clear history of helping.
> What's more important is that some members of the PPMC (either existing
> staff or just existing Apache PPMC members) have read-access to everything
> on the forums, so they could show oversight of what's happening there.
> I don't see that we need PPMC members to do any of the day-to-day work in
> the forums.  Any major policy changes or the like in the forums would be
> subject to approval by the PPMC (although I don't expect that would ever be
> an issue).  Someone (doesn't actually have to be a PPMC member) would need
> to provide a general report on the forum activity and call out if there are
> any issues in the quarterly report that the PPMC needs to provide to the
> Incubator(now) / to the Board(in the future).
> Make sense?

for me that makes a lot of sense


> And iCLAs are strictly required of any committer or PPMC member.  But I
> don't see that they'd be required of any forum users or admins simply
> because of their forum roles.  Remember: working on the code that runs the
> forum does not necessarily require an iCLA/committer because that code is
> not (presumably) planned to ship in an Apache product.  Although anyone
> working on code running on Apache machines would find it much easier if they
> had a committer account.
> - Shane
> P.S. Thanks Dennis!

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message