Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Zookeeper >> mail # dev >> PMC member criteria for ZooKeeper.

Copy link to this message
Re: PMC member criteria for ZooKeeper.
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.


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


research scientist

direct +34 93-183-8828

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