Hi all,
  I have been thinking about what should be the criteria for PMC
members for ZK. I do not have much experience with PMC member criteria
for other projects except for Hadoop. In Hadoop we indirectly imply
that a PMC member be a superset of a committer. Meaning more
responsibilities than a committer, more responsibility towards project
direction, more responsibilities towards projects day to day
activities.
 and here is what I had in mind for ZK (mostly explicitly stating what
we have in Hadoop):

A PMC member should be able to get involved in the day to day
activities of the project
   - by day to day activities I imply
      -  release discussions
     -  code reviews/ could be any kind - documentation/ others (does
not imply a deep understanding of the project), should be willing to
contribute on any part of the project
     -  should be willing to work with new contributors and mentor
them (mostly a superset of committer).
  - works well with other PMC members

By the above I imply that a PMC member has a greater set of
responsibilities that a committer and should be able to review (any
contribution) and contribute towards ZK releases.

What do others think?

thanks
mahadev

i would like to the pmc to have more of a project management view. i
think it would be great to have pmc members come up through the
committer ranks, but i also think there may be potential pmc members
that are more project management oriented than code oriented.

for me an ideal pmc member would:
  - understand the project
  - have a good understanding for where the project should and
shouldn't go, and be able to express that understanding
  - should vote on releases and be involved in release discussions
  - should participate in the mailing lists
  - have a good view of how zookeeper sits in the apache eco system
  - know what work is going on and identify areas of needed work

a committer will do many of these things, but you could be the ideal
pmc member and not be heavily involved in the coding, so making the
pmc members a subset of the committers seems overly restrictive.
actually it may be nice to have some members who don't have their
heads down in the code so that they can take a broader view.

so i guess the one attribute i would take issue with from your list is
the "patch reviews and contributions". a pmc member should be familiar
with the work going on in the project, but "patch reviews and
contributions" is squarely in the committers area of responsibility.

ben

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>  I have been thinking about what should be the criteria for PMC
> members for ZK. I do not have much experience with PMC member criteria
> for other projects except for Hadoop. In Hadoop we indirectly imply
> that a PMC member be a superset of a committer. Meaning more
> responsibilities than a committer, more responsibility towards project
> direction, more responsibilities towards projects day to day
> activities.
>
>
>  and here is what I had in mind for ZK (mostly explicitly stating what
> we have in Hadoop):
>
> A PMC member should be able to get involved in the day to day
> activities of the project
>   - by day to day activities I imply
>      -  release discussions
>     -  code reviews/ could be any kind - documentation/ others (does
> not imply a deep understanding of the project), should be willing to
> contribute on any part of the project
>     -  should be willing to work with new contributors and mentor
> them (mostly a superset of committer).
>  - works well with other PMC members
>
> By the above I imply that a PMC member has a greater set of
> responsibilities that a committer and should be able to review (any
> contribution) and contribute towards ZK releases.
>
> What do others think?
>
> thanks
> mahadev
>

Most discussions apart from issues like new committers are open, and  
anyone in the community has the right to express an opinion, and I  
believe we in general do take opinions and suggestions into account.  
Consequently, I don't see much benefit in having a PMC member that  
does not have a set of responsabilities that is a superset of the of  
the ones of a committer.

At the same time, I don't see a reason for constraining PMC to be  
committers in the bylaws. I would much rather discuss each case  
individually, and evaluate the merit of the candidate accordingly.

-Flavio

On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:12 AM, Benjamin Reed wrote:

> i would like to the pmc to have more of a project management view. i
> think it would be great to have pmc members come up through the
> committer ranks, but i also think there may be potential pmc members
> that are more project management oriented than code oriented.
>
> for me an ideal pmc member would:
>  - understand the project
>  - have a good understanding for where the project should and
> shouldn't go, and be able to express that understanding
>  - should vote on releases and be involved in release discussions
>  - should participate in the mailing lists
>  - have a good view of how zookeeper sits in the apache eco system
>  - know what work is going on and identify areas of needed work
>
> a committer will do many of these things, but you could be the ideal
> pmc member and not be heavily involved in the coding, so making the
> pmc members a subset of the committers seems overly restrictive.
> actually it may be nice to have some members who don't have their
> heads down in the code so that they can take a broader view.
>
> so i guess the one attribute i would take issue with from your list is
> the "patch reviews and contributions". a pmc member should be familiar
> with the work going on in the project, but "patch reviews and
> contributions" is squarely in the committers area of responsibility.
>
> ben
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>  I have been thinking about what should be the criteria for PMC
>> members for ZK. I do not have much experience with PMC member  
>> criteria
>> for other projects except for Hadoop. In Hadoop we indirectly imply
>> that a PMC member be a superset of a committer. Meaning more
>> responsibilities than a committer, more responsibility towards  
>> project
>> direction, more responsibilities towards projects day to day
>> activities.
>>
>>
>>  and here is what I had in mind for ZK (mostly explicitly stating  
>> what
>> we have in Hadoop):
>>
>> A PMC member should be able to get involved in the day to day
>> activities of the project
>>   - by day to day activities I imply
>>      -  release discussions
>>     -  code reviews/ could be any kind - documentation/ others (does
>> not imply a deep understanding of the project), should be willing to
>> contribute on any part of the project
>>     -  should be willing to work with new contributors and mentor
>> them (mostly a superset of committer).
>>  - works well with other PMC members
>>
>> By the above I imply that a PMC member has a greater set of
>> responsibilities that a committer and should be able to review (any
>> contribution) and contribute towards ZK releases.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>> thanks
>> mahadev
>>

flavio
junqueira

research scientist

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
direct +34 93-183-8828

avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
phone (408) 349 3300    fax (408) 349 3301

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  I have been thinking about what should be the criteria for PMC
> members for ZK. I do not have much experience with PMC member criteria
> for other projects except for Hadoop. In Hadoop we indirectly imply
> that a PMC member be a superset of a committer. Meaning more
> responsibilities than a committer, more responsibility towards project
> direction, more responsibilities towards projects day to day
> activities.
>

Hey Mahadev, from an Apache perspective coding doesn't really come
into play, PMC is more about governance/legal/community than coding:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
The key components are this:

"The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight. The
main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that
all legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that
each and every release is the product of the community as a whole.
That is key to our litigation protection mechanisms.

Secondly the role of the PMC is to further the long term development
and health of the community as a whole, and to ensure that balanced
and wide scale peer review and collaboration does happen. Within the
ASF we worry about any community which centers around a few
individuals who are working virtually uncontested. We believe that
this is detrimental to quality, stability, and robustness of both code
and long term social structures."

Further there is no requirement that a PMC member even be a committer.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members
"A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to
merit for the evolution of the project and demonstration of
commitment. They have write access to the code repository, an
apache.org mail address, the right to vote for the community-related
decisions and the right to propose an active user for committership.
The PMC as a whole is the entity that controls the project, nobody
else."

What you are describing about coding/review is more Committership and not PMC.

> By the above I imply that a PMC member has a greater set of
> responsibilities that a committer and should be able to review (any
> contribution) and contribute towards ZK releases.
>
> What do others think?
>

Wrt to great responsibilities that's definitely true, however PMC
responsibilities are around governance, while Committer
responsibilities are coding/reviewing.

Patrick

Ben, what you are detailing is similar to my response to Mahadev. One
note though, from an Apache perspective PMC members need not even be
familiar with the project, take Hadoop as an example where Ian was
largely unfamiliar with Hadoop prior to joining their PMC.
legal/procedure/community building, these are all things that can be
done by someone familiar with the apache way, but not necessarily
familiar with the individual project (not that I'm advocating we pull
in non-zk community into the pmc, but just to highlight).

Another example is the IPMC (incubator pmc), any Apache Member may be
an IPMC member just by asking, and they are charged with the oversight
of the individual podlings.

Patrick

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i would like to the pmc to have more of a project management view. i
> think it would be great to have pmc members come up through the
> committer ranks, but i also think there may be potential pmc members
> that are more project management oriented than code oriented.
>
> for me an ideal pmc member would:
>  - understand the project
>  - have a good understanding for where the project should and
> shouldn't go, and be able to express that understanding
>  - should vote on releases and be involved in release discussions
>  - should participate in the mailing lists
>  - have a good view of how zookeeper sits in the apache eco system
>  - know what work is going on and identify areas of needed work
>
> a committer will do many of these things, but you could be the ideal
> pmc member and not be heavily involved in the coding, so making the
> pmc members a subset of the committers seems overly restrictive.
> actually it may be nice to have some members who don't have their
> heads down in the code so that they can take a broader view.
>
> so i guess the one attribute i would take issue with from your list is
> the "patch reviews and contributions". a pmc member should be familiar
> with the work going on in the project, but "patch reviews and
> contributions" is squarely in the committers area of responsibility.
>
> ben
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>  I have been thinking about what should be the criteria for PMC
>> members for ZK. I do not have much experience with PMC member criteria
>> for other projects except for Hadoop. In Hadoop we indirectly imply
>> that a PMC member be a superset of a committer. Meaning more
>> responsibilities than a committer, more responsibility towards project
>> direction, more responsibilities towards projects day to day
>> activities.
>>
>>
>>  and here is what I had in mind for ZK (mostly explicitly stating what
>> we have in Hadoop):
>>
>> A PMC member should be able to get involved in the day to day
>> activities of the project
>>   - by day to day activities I imply
>>      -  release discussions
>>     -  code reviews/ could be any kind - documentation/ others (does
>> not imply a deep understanding of the project), should be willing to
>> contribute on any part of the project
>>     -  should be willing to work with new contributors and mentor
>> them (mostly a superset of committer).
>>  - works well with other PMC members
>>
>> By the above I imply that a PMC member has a greater set of
>> responsibilities that a committer and should be able to review (any
>> contribution) and contribute towards ZK releases.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>> thanks
>> mahadev
>>
>

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Most discussions apart from issues like new committers are open, and anyone
> in the community has the right to express an opinion, and I believe we in
> general do take opinions and suggestions into account. Consequently, I don't
> see much benefit in having a PMC member that does not have a set of
> responsabilities that is a superset of the of the ones of a committer.
>
>
Community members come and go, a sign of a healthy Apache project is adding
new committers and pmc members to ensure that the project continues to be
viable as this ebb/flow happens.
> At the same time, I don't see a reason for constraining PMC to be
> committers in the bylaws. I would much rather discuss each case
> individually, and evaluate the merit of the candidate accordingly.
>

We have clearly stated in the bylaws how one becomes a PMC member voting),
so I agree with you we don't need to update the bylaws. But it is a good
idea to outline how one becomes a PMC member and the criteria we (zk) use to
judge. Even if this is just a pointer to the links I sent earlier. (similar
to what we have for committers
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/CommitterCriteria I
think this is what Mahadev was shooting for, get everyone on the same page;
current PMC members, new members as they are elected, and the community at
large)

Patrick

>
> On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:12 AM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>
> i would like to the pmc to have more of a project management view. i
> think it would be great to have pmc members come up through the
> committer ranks, but i also think there may be potential pmc members
> that are more project management oriented than code oriented.
>
> for me an ideal pmc member would:
>  - understand the project
>  - have a good understanding for where the project should and
> shouldn't go, and be able to express that understanding
>  - should vote on releases and be involved in release discussions
>  - should participate in the mailing lists
>  - have a good view of how zookeeper sits in the apache eco system
>  - know what work is going on and identify areas of needed work
>
> a committer will do many of these things, but you could be the ideal
> pmc member and not be heavily involved in the coding, so making the
> pmc members a subset of the committers seems overly restrictive.
> actually it may be nice to have some members who don't have their
> heads down in the code so that they can take a broader view.
>
> so i guess the one attribute i would take issue with from your list is
> the "patch reviews and contributions". a pmc member should be familiar
> with the work going on in the project, but "patch reviews and
> contributions" is squarely in the committers area of responsibility.
>
> ben
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>  I have been thinking about what should be the criteria for PMC
>
> members for ZK. I do not have much experience with PMC member criteria
>
> for other projects except for Hadoop. In Hadoop we indirectly imply
>
> that a PMC member be a superset of a committer. Meaning more
>
> responsibilities than a committer, more responsibility towards project
>
> direction, more responsibilities towards projects day to day
>
> activities.
>
>
>
>  and here is what I had in mind for ZK (mostly explicitly stating what
>
> we have in Hadoop):
>
>
> A PMC member should be able to get involved in the day to day
>
> activities of the project
>
>   - by day to day activities I imply
>
>      -  release discussions
>
>     -  code reviews/ could be any kind - documentation/ others (does
>
> not imply a deep understanding of the project), should be willing to
>
> contribute on any part of the project
>
>     -  should be willing to work with new contributors and mentor
>
> them (mostly a superset of committer).
>
>  - works well with other PMC members
>
>
> By the above I imply that a PMC member has a greater set of

yes, overall i agree with your response to mahadev. i think in the
case of zookeeper we want pmc members who are familiar with the
project since they are voting on releases and release planning. they
also vote on committers. this is a bit different than the IPMC which
has a large collection of unrelated projects. since zookeeper has a
much more focused scope familiarity with the project is important.

ben

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben, what you are detailing is similar to my response to Mahadev. One
> note though, from an Apache perspective PMC members need not even be
> familiar with the project, take Hadoop as an example where Ian was
> largely unfamiliar with Hadoop prior to joining their PMC.
> legal/procedure/community building, these are all things that can be
> done by someone familiar with the apache way, but not necessarily
> familiar with the individual project (not that I'm advocating we pull
> in non-zk community into the pmc, but just to highlight).
>
> Another example is the IPMC (incubator pmc), any Apache Member may be
> an IPMC member just by asking, and they are charged with the oversight
> of the individual podlings.
>
> Patrick
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i would like to the pmc to have more of a project management view. i
>> think it would be great to have pmc members come up through the
>> committer ranks, but i also think there may be potential pmc members
>> that are more project management oriented than code oriented.
>>
>> for me an ideal pmc member would:
>>  - understand the project
>>  - have a good understanding for where the project should and
>> shouldn't go, and be able to express that understanding
>>  - should vote on releases and be involved in release discussions
>>  - should participate in the mailing lists
>>  - have a good view of how zookeeper sits in the apache eco system
>>  - know what work is going on and identify areas of needed work
>>
>> a committer will do many of these things, but you could be the ideal
>> pmc member and not be heavily involved in the coding, so making the
>> pmc members a subset of the committers seems overly restrictive.
>> actually it may be nice to have some members who don't have their
>> heads down in the code so that they can take a broader view.
>>
>> so i guess the one attribute i would take issue with from your list is
>> the "patch reviews and contributions". a pmc member should be familiar
>> with the work going on in the project, but "patch reviews and
>> contributions" is squarely in the committers area of responsibility.
>>
>> ben
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>  I have been thinking about what should be the criteria for PMC
>>> members for ZK. I do not have much experience with PMC member criteria
>>> for other projects except for Hadoop. In Hadoop we indirectly imply
>>> that a PMC member be a superset of a committer. Meaning more
>>> responsibilities than a committer, more responsibility towards project
>>> direction, more responsibilities towards projects day to day
>>> activities.
>>>
>>>
>>>  and here is what I had in mind for ZK (mostly explicitly stating what
>>> we have in Hadoop):
>>>
>>> A PMC member should be able to get involved in the day to day
>>> activities of the project
>>>   - by day to day activities I imply
>>>      -  release discussions
>>>     -  code reviews/ could be any kind - documentation/ others (does
>>> not imply a deep understanding of the project), should be willing to
>>> contribute on any part of the project
>>>     -  should be willing to work with new contributors and mentor
>>> them (mostly a superset of committer).
>>>  - works well with other PMC members
>>>
>>> By the above I imply that a PMC member has a greater set of
>>> responsibilities that a committer and should be able to review (any
>>> contribution) and contribute towards ZK releases.

Yes, I agree, just giving some insight into Apache at large.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes, overall i agree with your response to mahadev. i think in the
> case of zookeeper we want pmc members who are familiar with the
> project since they are voting on releases and release planning. they
> also vote on committers. this is a bit different than the IPMC which
> has a large collection of unrelated projects. since zookeeper has a
> much more focused scope familiarity with the project is important.
>
> ben
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ben, what you are detailing is similar to my response to Mahadev. One
>> note though, from an Apache perspective PMC members need not even be
>> familiar with the project, take Hadoop as an example where Ian was
>> largely unfamiliar with Hadoop prior to joining their PMC.
>> legal/procedure/community building, these are all things that can be
>> done by someone familiar with the apache way, but not necessarily
>> familiar with the individual project (not that I'm advocating we pull
>> in non-zk community into the pmc, but just to highlight).
>>
>> Another example is the IPMC (incubator pmc), any Apache Member may be
>> an IPMC member just by asking, and they are charged with the oversight
>> of the individual podlings.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> i would like to the pmc to have more of a project management view. i
>>> think it would be great to have pmc members come up through the
>>> committer ranks, but i also think there may be potential pmc members
>>> that are more project management oriented than code oriented.
>>>
>>> for me an ideal pmc member would:
>>>  - understand the project
>>>  - have a good understanding for where the project should and
>>> shouldn't go, and be able to express that understanding
>>>  - should vote on releases and be involved in release discussions
>>>  - should participate in the mailing lists
>>>  - have a good view of how zookeeper sits in the apache eco system
>>>  - know what work is going on and identify areas of needed work
>>>
>>> a committer will do many of these things, but you could be the ideal
>>> pmc member and not be heavily involved in the coding, so making the
>>> pmc members a subset of the committers seems overly restrictive.
>>> actually it may be nice to have some members who don't have their
>>> heads down in the code so that they can take a broader view.
>>>
>>> so i guess the one attribute i would take issue with from your list is
>>> the "patch reviews and contributions". a pmc member should be familiar
>>> with the work going on in the project, but "patch reviews and
>>> contributions" is squarely in the committers area of responsibility.
>>>
>>> ben
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>  I have been thinking about what should be the criteria for PMC
>>>> members for ZK. I do not have much experience with PMC member criteria
>>>> for other projects except for Hadoop. In Hadoop we indirectly imply
>>>> that a PMC member be a superset of a committer. Meaning more
>>>> responsibilities than a committer, more responsibility towards project
>>>> direction, more responsibilities towards projects day to day
>>>> activities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  and here is what I had in mind for ZK (mostly explicitly stating what
>>>> we have in Hadoop):
>>>>
>>>> A PMC member should be able to get involved in the day to day
>>>> activities of the project
>>>>   - by day to day activities I imply
>>>>      -  release discussions
>>>>     -  code reviews/ could be any kind - documentation/ others (does
>>>> not imply a deep understanding of the project), should be willing to
>>>> contribute on any part of the project
>>>>     -  should be willing to work with new contributors and mentor
>>>> them (mostly a superset of committer).
>>>>  - works well with other PMC members