On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What you are calling IP Auditors is really one example of "Incubator
> Committer" - there are two kinds of Committer roles that have been
> discussed, but there are others.
>
> - IP / Release auditors.
> - Shepherds.
The name "Incubator committer" is taken: that's what we call people who have
commit rights to the Incubator website and Subversion repository -- i.e. just
about everybody around here.
I suggest a working title of "Incubator Committer++".
> When IPMC members and Apache Members identify people who are "getting it" in
> a podling and they are either committers and PPMC members (ICLA and Apache
> account is the minimum) they can ask the IPMC to vote on them in private as
> Incubator Committers. This will encourage such people to help other
> podlings. This is just like a normal PMC.
What I like most about this proposal is that it isolates Incubator-specific
merit and articulates an ideal to aspire towards. I also like that you can
only get to be an "Incubator Committer++" through actions which take place
within the context of the Incubator.
> The IPMC can recognize further merit and make them IPMC members.
The problem is that there is still significant resistance within the IPMC to
electing contributors from active podlings. You're just not going to get many
warm bodies this way.
> This can be a way to
> make a VOTE binding. It can start non-binding, but as an Incubator Committer
> it is more visible.
I see. Since release votes are not binding, the distinction between committer
and Committer++ is only symbolic: the title "Incubator Committer++" offers
recognition but no reward.
The proposal thus replicates the Incubator's big flaw:
The Incubator has a fundamental structural flaw: it lacks a mechanism to
reward merit earned by individual podling contributors.
Why bother becoming an "Incubator Committer++" if it's just a name? And if
you're a Mentor, why bother nominating people for an empty honor?
Is there any incentive you'd be willing to attach to the "Incubator
Committer++" role in order to make it more attractive? The obvious candidate
is a binding release vote limited to one's own podling -- add that and I'm on
board. Unfortunately, my sense is that you're determined to withhold that
privilege because you fear it will be abused[1]. Any other ideas?
> Rather than inventing new structure for edge case communities we should be
> working to make sure that podlings gain an understanding of the few, but
> important expectations that the Foundation has for its Communities.
Doesn't this proposal invent a new structure, though? That's not a
deal-killer for me, but adding complexity is something which other people have
spoken out against.
Anyway, what goals do you hope to achieve? I'm skeptical, but I might be able
to support the proposal so long as you're willing to try something else if it
doesn't work. At least it's incremental, reversible and harmless aside from
the opportunity costs.
Marvin Humphrey
[1] http://s.apache.org/tZn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
