[VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

dblevins
Administrator
Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:

   http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e

Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but  
more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.

Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as  
we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)


Here's my +1


--
David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

kmalhi
+1

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM, David Blevins <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>
> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can assist
> in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but more
> specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as we
> tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
>
> --
> David
>
>


--
Karan Singh Malhi
Karan Singh Malhi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
In reply to this post by dblevins
+1

Thanks Jon.

David Blevins wrote
Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:

   http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@visi.com%3e

Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but  
more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.

Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as  
we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)


Here's my +1


--
David
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

dsh-3
In reply to this post by dblevins
+1

Cheers
Daniel

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 3:28 AM, David Blevins<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>
>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>
> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can assist in
> providing legal oversight for the project in general, but more specifically
> the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as we tend
> to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
>
> --
> David
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

Jeff Genender-2
In reply to this post by dblevins
David,

Voting as a committer, Jon certainly gets my +1 to be a PMC  
individual.  But this vote seems strange whereby committers are voting  
on PMC membership.

Can you be a bit more specific on the voting of people into the PMC?  
OpenEJB seems to have a different set of rules and it would be good to  
clarify the position... perhaps on the wiki somewhere?  Most PMC's  
vote for entry to PMC.  Here I see a vote on dev and there has not  
been clarification as to who gets to vote and whether it be private/
public, so its a bit confusing to me.

According to this link, it has a set of rules as to how things are done:

http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html

It is clear it says the PMC should be the ones to privately discuss  
and vote on nominees for project, project committee, etc.  How do you  
propose to handle sensitive topics like discussion of a committer out  
in the open?  99/100 times the discussion and vote will be clean, but  
that 1/100 time where -1s and heavy sensitive discussion ensues, bad  
feelings can become a issue.

Do you have thoughts on how this will be handled as well as a good  
clarification for OpenEJB's rules regarding voting, etc that seem to  
move itself away from the way things are normally done at Apache?

Thanks in advance for the clarification,

Jeff

On Jul 10, 2009, at 7:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>
>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>
> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
> assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but  
> more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as  
> we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
>
> --
> David
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

David Jencks

On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:

> David,
>
> Voting as a committer, Jon certainly gets my +1 to be a PMC  
> individual.  But this vote seems strange whereby committers are  
> voting on PMC membership.
>
> Can you be a bit more specific on the voting of people into the  
> PMC?  OpenEJB seems to have a different set of rules and it would be  
> good to clarify the position... perhaps on the wiki somewhere?  Most  
> PMC's vote for entry to PMC.  Here I see a vote on dev and there has  
> not been clarification as to who gets to vote and whether it be  
> private/public, so its a bit confusing to me.
>
> According to this link, it has a set of rules as to how things are  
> done:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html
>
> It is clear it says the PMC should be the ones to privately discuss  
> and vote on nominees for project, project committee, etc.  How do  
> you propose to handle sensitive topics like discussion of a  
> committer out in the open?  99/100 times the discussion and vote  
> will be clean, but that 1/100 time where -1s and heavy sensitive  
> discussion ensues, bad feelings can become a issue.

I read that as saying that as little as possible should be on the  
private list and that some possible allowed topics are XYZ but that if  
the project wants to discuss them in public it is free to do so.

We certainly run a risk of bad feelings if acrimonious debate erupts  
over someones PMC membership.  Personally I feel that the openejb  
community is so amazingly open and friendly that the risks are  
negligible.

clearing up whose votes count for pmc membership might be good  
though :-)

thanks
david jencks

>
> Do you have thoughts on how this will be handled as well as a good  
> clarification for OpenEJB's rules regarding voting, etc that seem to  
> move itself away from the way things are normally done at Apache?
>
> Thanks in advance for the clarification,
>
> Jeff
>
> On Jul 10, 2009, at 7:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>>
>> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
>> assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but  
>> more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>>
>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that  
>> as we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>>
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>>
>> --
>> David
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

David Jencks
In reply to this post by dblevins
+1

david jencks

On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>
>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>
> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
> assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but  
> more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as  
> we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
>
> --
> David
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

Mohammad Nour El-Din
+1 again :)

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:11 AM, David Jencks<[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> david jencks
>
> On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>>
>>
>>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>>
>> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can assist
>> in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but more
>> specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>>
>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as we
>> tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>>
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>>
>> --
>> David
>>
>



--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Voting policies for committers and PMC - was: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

Jeff Genender-2
In reply to this post by David Jencks
Changing the topic, so the vote is not polluted by this discussion.

David J, thanks for your response, and I am also very interested in  
David B's response.  I am certainly not trying to stir the pot (so to  
speak), just concrete clarification which I think needs to be on the  
OpenEJB wiki.  This question had come up before on the mailing lists  
and it seems nebulous as to the rules for the project.

Comments in-line below...


On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> Voting as a committer, Jon certainly gets my +1 to be a PMC  
>> individual.  But this vote seems strange whereby committers are  
>> voting on PMC membership.
>>
>> Can you be a bit more specific on the voting of people into the  
>> PMC?  OpenEJB seems to have a different set of rules and it would  
>> be good to clarify the position... perhaps on the wiki somewhere?  
>> Most PMC's vote for entry to PMC.  Here I see a vote on dev and  
>> there has not been clarification as to who gets to vote and whether  
>> it be private/public, so its a bit confusing to me.
>>
>> According to this link, it has a set of rules as to how things are  
>> done:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html
>>
>> It is clear it says the PMC should be the ones to privately discuss  
>> and vote on nominees for project, project committee, etc.  How do  
>> you propose to handle sensitive topics like discussion of a  
>> committer out in the open?  99/100 times the discussion and vote  
>> will be clean, but that 1/100 time where -1s and heavy sensitive  
>> discussion ensues, bad feelings can become a issue.
>
> I read that as saying that as little as possible should be on the  
> private list and that some possible allowed topics are XYZ but that  
> if the project wants to discuss them in public it is free to do so.
>
> We certainly run a risk of bad feelings if acrimonious debate erupts  
> over someones PMC membership.  Personally I feel that the openejb  
> community is so amazingly open and friendly that the risks are  
> negligible.
>


I read the part about little as possible (and something I heavily  
agree with).  But I am not convinced completely that it says that if  
you want to discuss the *private* matters in public to feel free to do  
so.  Perhaps the policy is confusing.... I read it like this:

"Policies
--------
Terms in this section as used as per RFC 2119"


RFC 2119 defines "SHALL" as :

"1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the  
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification."

The PMC document goes on to say:

"All Project Management Committees SHALL restrict their communication  
on private mailing lists to issues that cannot be discussed in public  
such as:
* nominees for project, project committee or Foundation membership"

I think the potential confusion lies heavily at the bottom of the  
document which states:

"Where Should Project Business Be Discussed?
Read the *policy*."


and it ends with:

"Some projects use the main development list for discussing these  
matters. Others have a dedicated list (traditionally general) for the  
discussion of pmc and project-wide topics which do not need to be  
confidential."


So it seems it is most certainly confusing (The SHALL (must) as policy  
and you must follow the policy, then ending with "do whatever you  
want"). However, the clarifying part, IMHO, states "for the discussion  
of PMC and project-wide topics which do not need to be confidential".

What is "confidential"?  I read confidential means "discussion of  
candidates for committership and PMC".  But maybe that is just me and  
I really don't know ;-)

I am really bringing this up because, just like you, I have very  
serious doubts anyone brought up for committer/PMC would be -1'd, but  
it can still be a sensitive topic since being open will quash  
anybody's ability to be open/honest about someone due to possible hurt  
feelings (although I believe your using the adjective of "acrimonious"  
is a bit strong since bitterness is not a requirement for wanting to  
discuss contribution openly without retribution).  I guess its a risk  
a project can take, but its nice to know it as project policy, and  
hopefully written somewhere.  I personally would like to know the  
rules since it clearly departs from the norm at Apache.

> clearing up whose votes count for pmc membership might be good  
> though :-)
>


+1!!! ;-)

Jeff



> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Do you have thoughts on how this will be handled as well as a good  
>> clarification for OpenEJB's rules regarding voting, etc that seem  
>> to move itself away from the way things are normally done at Apache?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for the clarification,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2009, at 7:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>>>
>>> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
>>> assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general,  
>>> but more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>>>
>>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that  
>>> as we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's my +1
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David
>>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Voting policies for committers and PMC - was: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

dblevins
Administrator
This is a fantastic thread; great to clarify if there are doubts and  
great opportunity to learn how various projects at Apache operate.  We  
can definitely put this up in the wiki.

Q. Do the terms of http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html forbid projects  
from discussing "nominees for project, project committee or Foundation  
membership" in public?

Not according to Ant, WebServices, Cocoon, Tapestry, Tomcat, and a  
handful of other Apache projects that discuss and vote on committers  
on dev@ and have been doing so with ASF Board knowledge for years.  It  
seems that particular section is more about giving projects a list of  
things that are OK to be discussed privately as many projects have had  
a problems being too closed and discussing too many things on private  
lists that should not be there.

We're likely the first project to take it to the level of "project  
committee", but hopefully not the last :)

Q. Whose votes count?

Apache requires a minimum of three +1 PMC votes which have legal  
significance to Apache as a corporation.  That said, all votes from  
the community are significant to the project and decision making and  
any -1 is cause for pause and discussion.  We frequently encourage and  
welcome votes from anyone in the community regardless of status.

Q. Voting on people: Is it hard to vote -1 in public / Can someone get  
their feelings hurt ?

Yes and yes.  Voting in public requires greater care and sensitivity  
on behalf of everyone; the vote proposer, the voters, and the votee.  
Prior to voting the proposer should create several opportunities for  
feedback, hopefully positive and constructive.  Community members with  
concerns should get involved early and actively mentor potential  
committers, taking opportunities for feedback as queues to get  
involved, encourage, and work through areas where they see said person  
needs more help.  The contributor should actively solicit and welcome  
all help and feedback and encouragement and feel welcome to give it in  
return.  Do not rush; all parties (proposer, voters, and votee) have  
work to do in grooming contributors, etc., and that work takes time.  
Votes that result in one or more -1s should not be seen as a failure  
of any one individual and instead be seen as an opportunity for all  
parties (proposer, voters, and votee) to make improvements, be more  
active, and give the process more time.


Ok, so I *think* that's all the open topics.  If it isn't missing  
anything major and generally captures the ideas of the group, I'll  
throw it into the wiki and people can go in and make any wording  
tweaks they like as well as any other cleanup.  I'll give it a while  
for lazy consensus before doing so.


-David


On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:

> Changing the topic, so the vote is not polluted by this discussion.
>
> David J, thanks for your response, and I am also very interested in  
> David B's response.  I am certainly not trying to stir the pot (so  
> to speak), just concrete clarification which I think needs to be on  
> the OpenEJB wiki.  This question had come up before on the mailing  
> lists and it seems nebulous as to the rules for the project.
>
> Comments in-line below...
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Voting as a committer, Jon certainly gets my +1 to be a PMC  
>>> individual.  But this vote seems strange whereby committers are  
>>> voting on PMC membership.
>>>
>>> Can you be a bit more specific on the voting of people into the  
>>> PMC?  OpenEJB seems to have a different set of rules and it would  
>>> be good to clarify the position... perhaps on the wiki somewhere?  
>>> Most PMC's vote for entry to PMC.  Here I see a vote on dev and  
>>> there has not been clarification as to who gets to vote and  
>>> whether it be private/public, so its a bit confusing to me.
>>>
>>> According to this link, it has a set of rules as to how things are  
>>> done:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html
>>>
>>> It is clear it says the PMC should be the ones to privately  
>>> discuss and vote on nominees for project, project committee, etc.  
>>> How do you propose to handle sensitive topics like discussion of a  
>>> committer out in the open?  99/100 times the discussion and vote  
>>> will be clean, but that 1/100 time where -1s and heavy sensitive  
>>> discussion ensues, bad feelings can become a issue.
>>
>> I read that as saying that as little as possible should be on the  
>> private list and that some possible allowed topics are XYZ but that  
>> if the project wants to discuss them in public it is free to do so.
>>
>> We certainly run a risk of bad feelings if acrimonious debate  
>> erupts over someones PMC membership.  Personally I feel that the  
>> openejb community is so amazingly open and friendly that the risks  
>> are negligible.
>>
>
>
> I read the part about little as possible (and something I heavily  
> agree with).  But I am not convinced completely that it says that if  
> you want to discuss the *private* matters in public to feel free to  
> do so.  Perhaps the policy is confusing.... I read it like this:
>
> "Policies
> --------
> Terms in this section as used as per RFC 2119"
>
>
> RFC 2119 defines "SHALL" as :
>
> "1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that  
> the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification."
>
> The PMC document goes on to say:
>
> "All Project Management Committees SHALL restrict their  
> communication on private mailing lists to issues that cannot be  
> discussed in public such as:
> * nominees for project, project committee or Foundation membership"
>
> I think the potential confusion lies heavily at the bottom of the  
> document which states:
>
> "Where Should Project Business Be Discussed?
> Read the *policy*."
>
>
> and it ends with:
>
> "Some projects use the main development list for discussing these  
> matters. Others have a dedicated list (traditionally general) for  
> the discussion of pmc and project-wide topics which do not need to  
> be confidential."
>
>
> So it seems it is most certainly confusing (The SHALL (must) as  
> policy and you must follow the policy, then ending with "do whatever  
> you want"). However, the clarifying part, IMHO, states "for the  
> discussion of PMC and project-wide topics which do not need to be  
> confidential".
>
> What is "confidential"?  I read confidential means "discussion of  
> candidates for committership and PMC".  But maybe that is just me  
> and I really don't know ;-)
>
> I am really bringing this up because, just like you, I have very  
> serious doubts anyone brought up for committer/PMC would be -1'd,  
> but it can still be a sensitive topic since being open will quash  
> anybody's ability to be open/honest about someone due to possible  
> hurt feelings (although I believe your using the adjective of  
> "acrimonious" is a bit strong since bitterness is not a requirement  
> for wanting to discuss contribution openly without retribution).  I  
> guess its a risk a project can take, but its nice to know it as  
> project policy, and hopefully written somewhere.  I personally would  
> like to know the rules since it clearly departs from the norm at  
> Apache.
>
>> clearing up whose votes count for pmc membership might be good  
>> though :-)
>>
>
>
> +1!!! ;-)
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>> Do you have thoughts on how this will be handled as well as a good  
>>> clarification for OpenEJB's rules regarding voting, etc that seem  
>>> to move itself away from the way things are normally done at Apache?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for the clarification,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2009, at 7:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>>>>
>>>> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he  
>>>> can assist in providing legal oversight for the project in  
>>>> general, but more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs  
>>>> more oversight.
>>>>
>>>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that  
>>>> as we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's my +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Voting policies for committers and PMC - was: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

kevan

On Jul 12, 2009, at 8:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> This is a fantastic thread; great to clarify if there are doubts and  
> great opportunity to learn how various projects at Apache operate.  
> We can definitely put this up in the wiki.
>
> Q. Do the terms of http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html forbid  
> projects from discussing "nominees for project, project committee or  
> Foundation membership" in public?
>
> Not according to Ant, WebServices, Cocoon, Tapestry, Tomcat, and a  
> handful of other Apache projects that discuss and vote on committers  
> on dev@ and have been doing so with ASF Board knowledge for years.  
> It seems that particular section is more about giving projects a  
> list of things that are OK to be discussed privately as many  
> projects have had a problems being too closed and discussing too  
> many things on private lists that should not be there.

Agreed. And that's certainly in keeping with my history with Apache.  
My interpretation of the PMC Guide seems to be in sync with yours...

>
> We're likely the first project to take it to the level of "project  
> committee", but hopefully not the last :)
>
> Q. Whose votes count?
>
> Apache requires a minimum of three +1 PMC votes which have legal  
> significance to Apache as a corporation.  That said, all votes from  
> the community are significant to the project and decision making and  
> any -1 is cause for pause and discussion.  We frequently encourage  
> and welcome votes from anyone in the community regardless of status.

One clarification -- release votes require a minimum of 3 +1 votes  
(and majority of +1 votes). Non-release votes are simple majority. In  
my experience, the vast majority of votes are unanimous (or at least  
without dissenting -1 votes). This is usually because, as you discuss  
below, consensus has already been established.

>
> Q. Voting on people: Is it hard to vote -1 in public / Can someone  
> get their feelings hurt ?
>
> Yes and yes.  Voting in public requires greater care and sensitivity  
> on behalf of everyone; the vote proposer, the voters, and the  
> votee.  Prior to voting the proposer should create several  
> opportunities for feedback, hopefully positive and constructive.  
> Community members with concerns should get involved early and  
> actively mentor potential committers, taking opportunities for  
> feedback as queues to get involved, encourage, and work through  
> areas where they see said person needs more help.  The contributor  
> should actively solicit and welcome all help and feedback and  
> encouragement and feel welcome to give it in return.  Do not rush;  
> all parties (proposer, voters, and votee) have work to do in  
> grooming contributors, etc., and that work takes time.  Votes that  
> result in one or more -1s should not be seen as a failure of any one  
> individual and instead be seen as an opportunity for all parties  
> (proposer, voters, and votee) to make improvements, be more active,  
> and give the process more time.
>
>
> Ok, so I *think* that's all the open topics.  If it isn't missing  
> anything major and generally captures the ideas of the group, I'll  
> throw it into the wiki and people can go in and make any wording  
> tweaks they like as well as any other cleanup.  I'll give it a while  
> for lazy consensus before doing so.

One final note -- all community members should be encouraged to  
provide legal oversight for a project, not just PMC members. Only  
difference is that it is *expected* from PMC members.

--kevan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Voting policies for committers and PMC - was: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

Jeff Genender-2
In reply to this post by dblevins
Thanks for the info.  Yes if this were on the wiki, it would be  
tremendously helpful.  Thanks for the input.

Jeff


On Jul 12, 2009, at 6:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> This is a fantastic thread; great to clarify if there are doubts and  
> great opportunity to learn how various projects at Apache operate.  
> We can definitely put this up in the wiki.
>
> Q. Do the terms of http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html forbid  
> projects from discussing "nominees for project, project committee or  
> Foundation membership" in public?
>
> Not according to Ant, WebServices, Cocoon, Tapestry, Tomcat, and a  
> handful of other Apache projects that discuss and vote on committers  
> on dev@ and have been doing so with ASF Board knowledge for years.  
> It seems that particular section is more about giving projects a  
> list of things that are OK to be discussed privately as many  
> projects have had a problems being too closed and discussing too  
> many things on private lists that should not be there.
>
> We're likely the first project to take it to the level of "project  
> committee", but hopefully not the last :)
>
> Q. Whose votes count?
>
> Apache requires a minimum of three +1 PMC votes which have legal  
> significance to Apache as a corporation.  That said, all votes from  
> the community are significant to the project and decision making and  
> any -1 is cause for pause and discussion.  We frequently encourage  
> and welcome votes from anyone in the community regardless of status.
>
> Q. Voting on people: Is it hard to vote -1 in public / Can someone  
> get their feelings hurt ?
>
> Yes and yes.  Voting in public requires greater care and sensitivity  
> on behalf of everyone; the vote proposer, the voters, and the  
> votee.  Prior to voting the proposer should create several  
> opportunities for feedback, hopefully positive and constructive.  
> Community members with concerns should get involved early and  
> actively mentor potential committers, taking opportunities for  
> feedback as queues to get involved, encourage, and work through  
> areas where they see said person needs more help.  The contributor  
> should actively solicit and welcome all help and feedback and  
> encouragement and feel welcome to give it in return.  Do not rush;  
> all parties (proposer, voters, and votee) have work to do in  
> grooming contributors, etc., and that work takes time.  Votes that  
> result in one or more -1s should not be seen as a failure of any one  
> individual and instead be seen as an opportunity for all parties  
> (proposer, voters, and votee) to make improvements, be more active,  
> and give the process more time.
>
>
> Ok, so I *think* that's all the open topics.  If it isn't missing  
> anything major and generally captures the ideas of the group, I'll  
> throw it into the wiki and people can go in and make any wording  
> tweaks they like as well as any other cleanup.  I'll give it a while  
> for lazy consensus before doing so.
>
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> Changing the topic, so the vote is not polluted by this discussion.
>>
>> David J, thanks for your response, and I am also very interested in  
>> David B's response.  I am certainly not trying to stir the pot (so  
>> to speak), just concrete clarification which I think needs to be on  
>> the OpenEJB wiki.  This question had come up before on the mailing  
>> lists and it seems nebulous as to the rules for the project.
>>
>> Comments in-line below...
>>
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> Voting as a committer, Jon certainly gets my +1 to be a PMC  
>>>> individual.  But this vote seems strange whereby committers are  
>>>> voting on PMC membership.
>>>>
>>>> Can you be a bit more specific on the voting of people into the  
>>>> PMC?  OpenEJB seems to have a different set of rules and it would  
>>>> be good to clarify the position... perhaps on the wiki  
>>>> somewhere?  Most PMC's vote for entry to PMC.  Here I see a vote  
>>>> on dev and there has not been clarification as to who gets to  
>>>> vote and whether it be private/public, so its a bit confusing to  
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>> According to this link, it has a set of rules as to how things  
>>>> are done:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html
>>>>
>>>> It is clear it says the PMC should be the ones to privately  
>>>> discuss and vote on nominees for project, project committee,  
>>>> etc.  How do you propose to handle sensitive topics like  
>>>> discussion of a committer out in the open?  99/100 times the  
>>>> discussion and vote will be clean, but that 1/100 time where -1s  
>>>> and heavy sensitive discussion ensues, bad feelings can become a  
>>>> issue.
>>>
>>> I read that as saying that as little as possible should be on the  
>>> private list and that some possible allowed topics are XYZ but  
>>> that if the project wants to discuss them in public it is free to  
>>> do so.
>>>
>>> We certainly run a risk of bad feelings if acrimonious debate  
>>> erupts over someones PMC membership.  Personally I feel that the  
>>> openejb community is so amazingly open and friendly that the risks  
>>> are negligible.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I read the part about little as possible (and something I heavily  
>> agree with).  But I am not convinced completely that it says that  
>> if you want to discuss the *private* matters in public to feel free  
>> to do so.  Perhaps the policy is confusing.... I read it like this:
>>
>> "Policies
>> --------
>> Terms in this section as used as per RFC 2119"
>>
>>
>> RFC 2119 defines "SHALL" as :
>>
>> "1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that  
>> the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification."
>>
>> The PMC document goes on to say:
>>
>> "All Project Management Committees SHALL restrict their  
>> communication on private mailing lists to issues that cannot be  
>> discussed in public such as:
>> * nominees for project, project committee or Foundation membership"
>>
>> I think the potential confusion lies heavily at the bottom of the  
>> document which states:
>>
>> "Where Should Project Business Be Discussed?
>> Read the *policy*."
>>
>>
>> and it ends with:
>>
>> "Some projects use the main development list for discussing these  
>> matters. Others have a dedicated list (traditionally general) for  
>> the discussion of pmc and project-wide topics which do not need to  
>> be confidential."
>>
>>
>> So it seems it is most certainly confusing (The SHALL (must) as  
>> policy and you must follow the policy, then ending with "do  
>> whatever you want"). However, the clarifying part, IMHO, states  
>> "for the discussion of PMC and project-wide topics which do not  
>> need to be confidential".
>>
>> What is "confidential"?  I read confidential means "discussion of  
>> candidates for committership and PMC".  But maybe that is just me  
>> and I really don't know ;-)
>>
>> I am really bringing this up because, just like you, I have very  
>> serious doubts anyone brought up for committer/PMC would be -1'd,  
>> but it can still be a sensitive topic since being open will quash  
>> anybody's ability to be open/honest about someone due to possible  
>> hurt feelings (although I believe your using the adjective of  
>> "acrimonious" is a bit strong since bitterness is not a requirement  
>> for wanting to discuss contribution openly without retribution).  I  
>> guess its a risk a project can take, but its nice to know it as  
>> project policy, and hopefully written somewhere.  I personally  
>> would like to know the rules since it clearly departs from the norm  
>> at Apache.
>>
>>> clearing up whose votes count for pmc membership might be good  
>>> though :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> +1!!! ;-)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have thoughts on how this will be handled as well as a  
>>>> good clarification for OpenEJB's rules regarding voting, etc that  
>>>> seem to move itself away from the way things are normally done at  
>>>> Apache?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance for the clarification,
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 10, 2009, at 7:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he  
>>>>> can assist in providing legal oversight for the project in  
>>>>> general, but more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs  
>>>>> more oversight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond  
>>>>> that as we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my +1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Voting policies for committers and PMC - was: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

Jeff Genender-2
In reply to this post by kevan

On Jul 12, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 8:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> Q. Voting on people: Is it hard to vote -1 in public / Can someone  
>> get their feelings hurt ?
>>
>> Yes and yes.  Voting in public requires greater care and  
>> sensitivity on behalf of everyone; the vote proposer, the voters,  
>> and the votee.  Prior to voting the proposer should create several  
>> opportunities for feedback, hopefully positive and constructive.  
>> Community members with concerns should get involved early and  
>> actively mentor potential committers, taking opportunities for  
>> feedback as queues to get involved, encourage, and work through  
>> areas where they see said person needs more help.  The contributor  
>> should actively solicit and welcome all help and feedback and  
>> encouragement and feel welcome to give it in return.  Do not rush;  
>> all parties (proposer, voters, and votee) have work to do in  
>> grooming contributors, etc., and that work takes time.  Votes that  
>> result in one or more -1s should not be seen as a failure of any  
>> one individual and instead be seen as an opportunity for all  
>> parties (proposer, voters, and votee) to make improvements, be more  
>> active, and give the process more time.
>>
>>
>> Ok, so I *think* that's all the open topics.  If it isn't missing  
>> anything major and generally captures the ideas of the group, I'll  
>> throw it into the wiki and people can go in and make any wording  
>> tweaks they like as well as any other cleanup.  I'll give it a  
>> while for lazy consensus before doing so.
>
> One final note -- all community members should be encouraged to  
> provide legal oversight for a project, not just PMC members. Only  
> difference is that it is *expected* from PMC members.

+1000 ;-)  great point!

Jeff


>
> --kevan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

Dain Sundstrom
In reply to this post by dblevins
+1

-dain

On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>
>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>
> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
> assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but  
> more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as  
> we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
>
> --
> David
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

kevan
In reply to this post by dblevins
+1
--kevan
On Jul 10, 2009, at 9:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>
>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>
> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
> assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but  
> more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as  
> we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
>
> --
> David
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Adding Jon to the PMC

Jacek Laskowski
In reply to this post by dblevins
+1 (sorry for late voting - I thought I had already done it).

Jacek

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 3:28 AM, David Blevins<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>
>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>
> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can assist in
> providing legal oversight for the project in general, but more specifically
> the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as we tend
> to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
>
> --
> David
>
>



--
Jacek Laskowski
Notatnik Projektanta Java EE - http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[RESULTS] Adding Jon to the PMC

dblevins
Administrator
In reply to this post by dblevins
Ok, time to close this vote.  Vote passes with 10 +1s and no other  
votes:

Voters:
Dain Sundstrom
Daniel S. Haischt
David Blevins
David Jencks
Jacek Laskowski
Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
Jeff Genender
Karan Malhi
Kevan Miller
Mohammad Nour El-Din


Jon, thanks for the extra time.


-David


On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>
>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>
> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
> assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but  
> more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as  
> we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
>
> --
> David
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RESULTS] Adding Jon to the PMC

dsh-3
congratulations !

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:05 PM, David Blevins<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ok, time to close this vote.  Vote passes with 10 +1s and no other votes:
>
> Voters:
> Dain Sundstrom
> Daniel S. Haischt
> David Blevins
> David Jencks
> Jacek Laskowski
> Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
> Jeff Genender
> Karan Malhi
> Kevan Miller
> Mohammad Nour El-Din
>
>
> Jon, thanks for the extra time.
>
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>>
>>
>>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>>
>> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can assist
>> in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but more
>> specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>>
>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as we
>> tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>>
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>>
>> --
>> David
>>
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RESULTS] Adding Jon to the PMC

dblevins
Administrator
A gentle reminder to hold the "congratulations." :)

Being on the PMC is a service, not an achievement.  It does not mean  
anything more than said person has the time to help us function  
legally (and some understanding on how to do that) and it should  
really only last as long as he/she has the time to do it.

A "thank you" is a great response though!

-David


On Jul 21, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Daniel S. Haischt wrote:

> congratulations !
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:05 PM, David  
> Blevins<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Ok, time to close this vote.  Vote passes with 10 +1s and no other  
>> votes:
>>
>> Voters:
>> Dain Sundstrom
>> Daniel S. Haischt
>> David Blevins
>> David Jencks
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
>> Jeff Genender
>> Karan Malhi
>> Kevan Miller
>> Mohammad Nour El-Din
>>
>>
>> Jon, thanks for the extra time.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>>>
>>>
>>>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>>>
>>> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can  
>>> assist
>>> in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but more
>>> specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>>>
>>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that  
>>> as we
>>> tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's my +1
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RESULTS] Adding Jon to the PMC

Mohammad Nour El-Din
Thank you Jon :)

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:05 AM, David Blevins<[hidden email]> wrote:

> A gentle reminder to hold the "congratulations." :)
>
> Being on the PMC is a service, not an achievement.  It does not mean
> anything more than said person has the time to help us function legally (and
> some understanding on how to do that) and it should really only last as long
> as he/she has the time to do it.
>
> A "thank you" is a great response though!
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
>
>> congratulations !
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:05 PM, David Blevins<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, time to close this vote.  Vote passes with 10 +1s and no other votes:
>>>
>>> Voters:
>>> Dain Sundstrom
>>> Daniel S. Haischt
>>> David Blevins
>>> David Jencks
>>> Jacek Laskowski
>>> Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
>>> Jeff Genender
>>> Karan Malhi
>>> Kevan Miller
>>> Mohammad Nour El-Din
>>>
>>>
>>> Jon, thanks for the extra time.
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%3cD3673749-367F-45E0-93B6-F74164BC5334@...%3e
>>>>
>>>> Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can
>>>> assist
>>>> in providing legal oversight for the project in general, but more
>>>> specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
>>>>
>>>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that as we
>>>> tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's my +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>



--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
12