openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Rules of voting for new committers and PPMC members
Date Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:04:28 GMT
On 6/4/12 4:30 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> ...
> --- Dom 3/6/12, Dave Fisher <> ha scritto:
> ...
>>> On 06/03/2012 11:48 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>> FWIW,
>>>> The Foundation Roles are explained here:
>>> yes, this is standard ASF policy.
>>> My question/concern at this point would be --
>>> how well do we think this works for Apache OpenOffice?
>> The PPMC has had the practice of making Committers into PPMC
>> members on the same VOTE. This is the practice for some
>> Apache projects, but not all. I think that from now on this
>> project should always have separate votes as a matter of
>> policy.
>> What do others think?
> I agree. But I see two level of problems:
> 1) Pootle. At this time it's not possible to identify
> contributors and the PPMC is basically forced to
> bring them in as committers. Here the committer+PPMC
> vote is usually abused.

pootle and the current setup requires definitely more work to identify
contributions. Having committers for each language would simplify the
process a lot. And people who actively contribute translation are of
course perfect candidates to become a committer.

> 2) The PPMC has a tendency to bring in non-developers
> that usually don't need to be committers at all. I am
> not sure this fits strictly the Apache model but while
> it is clear that not all contributions are in code
> form, there is no other way of empowering them that
> does not go through making them committers first.

I don't see a real problem here, committers have more rights but you
don't have to use it if not necessary. In such cases we could combine
the vote for committer and PMC. We should not complicate things.

commiters get an email and can of course edit the webpage,
get blog access, etc. all this is not related to any code contribution
but helpful.

But as mentioned earlier we should separate the vote for becoming
committer and PMC. We don't have any pressure and can observe
contribution over some time.

I don't see a problem to figure out good candidates for the PMC over time.

>From my point of view we don't need any further rock solid rules others
than what already have. And we simply start to separate the votes it's
fine and goes in the right direction. A PMC with hundreds of members
won't probably scale very well but a project with hundreds of committers


> If there were a way to make people members of the
> (P)PMC without making them committers I am sure that
> would be used a lot but it would seem meritocratically
> incorrect to bring into the PPMC people that are not
> committers but not offer the same opportunity to
> committers by default.
> Pedro.
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>>> Pretty much in line to what you are thinking.
>>>> Pedro.
>>>> --- Dom 3/6/12, Yong Lin Ma<> 
>> ha scritto:
>>>>> This was a discussion about rules of
>>>>> voting for new committer and PPMC
>>>>> member. We think it is more appropriate to let
>> all
>>>>> contributors get
>>>>> involved in this. So I moved the discussion to
>> ooo-dev.
>>>>> General process about voting in a new committer
>> and PPMC
>>>>> member is here
>>>>> By far the practice is most candidates were
>> voted for
>>>>> committer and
>>>>> PPMC member at the same time.
>>>>> And no concreate critrial defined in public for
>> AOO.
>>>>> Your comments are welcomed.
>>>>> A comment from Rob:
>>>>>> If it were entirely up to me I'd have it be
>> like:
>>>>>> 1) Contributor -- anyone who contributes to
>> the project,
>>>>> mailing list
>>>>> discussions, patches, translations, bug
>> reports, doc,
>>>>> support.� This
>>>>> comes in all flavors and sizes.� We need to
>> do a better
>>>>> job giving
>>>>> them credit and acknowledging their
>> contributions.� If
>>>>> the feeling is
>>>>> that someone is not valued unless they are
>> voted in as a
>>>>> PPMC member,
>>>>> then we're doing something wrong.
>>>>>> 2) Committer -- The threshold question:�
>> Do we
>>>>> trust their judgement
>>>>> with respect to the area of their
>> contributions?� The
>>>>> move from
>>>>> contributor to committer is a move from RTC
>> (patches must be
>>>>> reviewed)
>>>>> to CTR.� So we really need to have a sense
>> that they
>>>>> are doing quality
>>>>> work.� Committers also have veto rights on
>> all of our
>>>>> commits.� So we
>>>>> need to trust their judgement.
>>>>>> 3) PMC member -- The threshold question:�
>> Do they
>>>>> understand The
>>>>> Apache Way and our community-based decision
>> making? On
>>>>> average are
>>>>> they solving more community problems than they
>> are
>>>>> causing?� Are they
>>>>> helping others in the community succeed?�
>> When we
>>>>> graduate, and our
>>>>> Mentors move on to other podlings, the PMC
>> collectively
>>>>> needs to
>>>>> mentor new members to the project.� So I
>> think the PMC
>>>>> is more about
>>>>> trusting their community skills rather than
>> their technical
>>>>> skills.
>>>>>> It might be possible for someone to qualify
>> for 2 and 3
>>>>> at the same
>>>>> time.� But probably not in every case.
>>>>>> Note:� This is not how we have operated
>>>>> previously.� I think there was
>>>>> an bootstrapping issue where we needed to have
>> a PPMC
>>>>> suitably large
>>>>> and diverse to provide balance.� We also
>> obviously
>>>>> started with a PPMC
>>>>> consisting of people who did not fully
>> understand
>>>>> Apache.� That is the
>>>>> nature of Incubation.� But I don't think this
>> approach
>>>>> is necessarily
>>>>> something we should continue with a year later,
>> as we
>>>>> approach
>>>>> graduation.
>>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>> "So let it rock, let it roll
>>> Let the bible belt come and save my soul
>>> Hold on to sixteen as long as you can
>>> Changes come around real soon make us woman and men."
>>>           -- "Jack and Diane",
>> John Mellencamp

View raw message