Hi Craig In general I agree with: - Document more details about the process - Add standard templates for inviting, accepting and welcoming emails to nominee
I think the process currently describe it works and I don't see why the need for the change https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html Section: Adding new committers Section: Voting in a new PPMC member We have followed this process for some recent members we added to OpenWhisk. For PPMC members: We held a vote on ppmc private, give the minimum 72 hours for the vote, and close the vote when there are 3 or more votes. But we don't require ALL members to vote +1 to move forward, this would be extremely difficult to get ALL votes. Then we do the [NOTICE] to IPMC private list as indicated in the process doc, with a minimum of 72 hours to hear back from IPMC on any objections this takes care of the PPMC member being added in isolation by the PPMC. Once more than 72 hours has pass and not negative feedback from IPMC we send invitation to new member, they accept, mentor requires Apache account. For Committers members: We follow similar process as ppmc new member. We held a vote on ppmc private, give the minimum 72 hours for the vote, and close the vote when there are 3 or more votes. But we don't require ALL members to vote +1 to move forward, this would be extremely difficult to get ALL votes. Once more than 72 hours has pass and not negative feedback from IPMC we send invitation to new member, they accept, mentor requires Apache account. The only difference is we don't send an email [NOTICE] to private IPM for them to evaluate the nominee and reject in 72 hours. Would adding the step to send a [NOTICE] to private IPMC for Committers would address your concerns? I would be against changing the documented process to be more strict, to require ALL PPMC members to vote +1, and at least 3 +1 IPMC to vote get someone added as a Committer or PPMC member. -- Carlos On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 7:50 PM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > I would respectfully suggest that the PPMC guide section that describes > how to invite new committers and PPMC members is not adequate to the task. > > This is what I think is the relevant section of > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html : > > There are no ASF wide rules on how to decide when to make someone a > committer, podlings need to agree an approach that works for them. Some ASF > projects have a high bar requiring significant contributions before someone > is considered, other projects grant it more freely to anyone who shows > interest in contributing. Some projects use formal [DISCUSS] and [VOTE] > threads on the private mailing list, others use a more lazy consensus > approach. For more information see, commit access and the ASF How it Works > document, which explains meritocracy and roles. > > Once the decision has been made the proposer offers committership to the > nominee. If the nominee accepts the responsibility of being a committer for > the project, the nominee formally becomes an Apache committer. > > The proposer then asks an Incubator PMC member (typically one of the > mentors) to follow the documented procedures > http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newcommitter to complete the process. > If the nominee is already an Apache committer on another project, the > Incubator PMC member simply updates the SVN authorization settings to > include the nominee as a committer on the podling. > > I suggest that we look again at this section for these aspects: > > 1. We should document how we expect podlings to discuss, vote, and invite > committers and PPMC members. The paragraph describing how to decide on new > committers should be non-prescriptive with regard to the criteria, but > prescribe the process. If a podling doesn't want to follow the process of > discussing, voting, and inviting, it should explicitly document what it > wants to do so that its unique process can be incorporated into the > project's unique Project By-Laws. But most podlings will want to follow the > processes of most TLPs: > > a: discuss in private the desire to invite a new committer/PPMC member > b: hold a vote in private, with +1, -1, +0 and -0 > c: end the vote when all PPMC members have voted, or at least 72 hours > have passed; with at least three binding (IPMC members) votes in favor, and > no -1 votes > > 2. We should document the process in the guide and *not* refer to the page > that describes how PMCs invite new committers. The processes are different > in the case of podlings and it is simply confusing to mix them. Podlings > especially could use help with "standard" emails similar to those found > here: http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process > > 3. It is not obvious what the policy is for a podling to invite new > committers and PPMC members. I don't believe it should be the > responsibility of the podling to decide in isolation the process to invite > new committers, just as it is not the podlings' decision how to invite new > PPMC members. > > If we can agree on the above, I will take responsibility to update the > incubator guides. > > WDYT? > > Craig L Russell > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo > >
