Where Jay has set the bar for now sounds good to me. Yeah
I think the long term goal of committers == PMC is the right one. While
I am not sure if they have it set as formal policy it seems common on
projects I have observed for new committers to become PMC members $n$
months later. Being a solid active committer for (say) 3 months is good
enough for me. But keeping the initial committer/PMC votes separate
lets us keep flexibility to adjust the committer requirements without
worrying about PMC ones.
+1 on stating a formal emeritus policy up front (but keeping a
relatively long timeout, other projects can easily consume a quarter).
On 03/14/2012 12:14 AM, Jay Kreps wrote:
> Hey All,
> One thing suggested to us by our Apache mentors was to formalize the
> criteria for becoming a committer and pmc member. Different projects have
> different criteria in this regard. What are people's thoughts in this
> FWIW, here are my thoughts. I would suggest we hold a high bar on technical
> capability but a fairly low bar on level of contribution. I think 3+
> substantive patches plus an interest in ongoing involvement should be
> enough. I think this is more appropriate to a young project such as
> ourselves. Since we do blocking code reviews for both committers and
> non-committers this doesn't put us at too much risk of weak code creeping
> in. I don't have any thoughts on what would be a good standard for PMC
> membership. It might also be a good idea to make people "committers
> emeritus" after 6-12 months of inactivity. I have found on past projects
> that committers tend to accumulate to the point where a substantial portion
> of people are not active which is probably not the right thing for Apache
> since things are decided by voting.
> What do others think? Any past experiences of this "done right"?