Follow-up regarding community review team

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Follow-up regarding community review team

weierophinney
Administrator
Hey, all --

By my count, on-list and off-, I see the following folks volunteering:

 * Pádraic Brady
 * Rob Allen
 * Steven Brown
 * Shaun Farrell
 * Pieter Kokx
 * Dolf Schimmel

which falls perfectly in the 5-7 people range we discussed in the
thread.

If nobody has any objections, I'd like to say hello to our new community
team!

I think the first orders of business for them should be:

 * Decide on a name and/or acronym for the team
 * Determine a period for sitting on the team (3 months, 6 months, 1
   year, etc.)
 * Determine how new members will be selected when current members need
   to resign and/or their volunteer period expires

After that, I think we can start some work. :)

Quick note: I'm heading off to DPC tomorrow, and have a ton of work to
do between now and then on presentations. I'll monitor the list when I
can, but be aware that I may not be able to respond until next week.

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Graham Anderson
On Monday 07 June 2010 18:49:04 Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>If nobody has any objections, I'd like to say hello to our new community
>team!

Do the volunteers have the necessary experience to decide on matters such as
the following?

   * If the maintainer refuses to accept a patch, act as an arbiter
     between the contributor and the maintainer
   * If the maintainer does not respond after a set period of time,
     would evaluate and/or apply the patch for the contributor
   * Would issue pull requests to the Zend team in such instances as the
     above

   * Provide feedback on proposals (including initial decision as to
     whether or not there is enough community interest in including the
     proposed functionality in the framework)
   * Would do initial code review on the proposal implementation

These are pretty important decisions where I would expect the decision makers
to have appropriate experience in such areas as release management, project
management, team/project leadership and so on.

I'm pretty confident of the experience of one or two of the volunteers but I
would be much happier if I knew a little bit about the background of them all.
In the interests of fairness I will decline to name those whom I understand to
be qualified.


Cheers the noo,
Graham
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Pieter Kokx
In reply to this post by weierophinney
A few days ago, some folks in #zftalk.dev agreed that CR Team would be a
good acronym. Since acronyms as CRT and RT obviously are too confusing,
CR Team looked like the best option to us by then.

--
Best Regards,

Pieter Kokx
PHP Developer
Zend Framework developer


On 07-06-10 18:49, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

> Hey, all --
>
> By my count, on-list and off-, I see the following folks volunteering:
>
>  * Pádraic Brady
>  * Rob Allen
>  * Steven Brown
>  * Shaun Farrell
>  * Pieter Kokx
>  * Dolf Schimmel
>
> which falls perfectly in the 5-7 people range we discussed in the
> thread.
>
> If nobody has any objections, I'd like to say hello to our new community
> team!
>
> I think the first orders of business for them should be:
>
>  * Decide on a name and/or acronym for the team
>  * Determine a period for sitting on the team (3 months, 6 months, 1
>    year, etc.)
>  * Determine how new members will be selected when current members need
>    to resign and/or their volunteer period expires
>
> After that, I think we can start some work. :)
>
> Quick note: I'm heading off to DPC tomorrow, and have a ton of work to
> do between now and then on presentations. I'll monitor the list when I
> can, but be aware that I may not be able to respond until next week.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Ben Scholzen 'DASPRiD'
In reply to this post by weierophinney
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

padraicb
In reply to this post by Pieter Kokx
Though I kind of liked confusing everyone...;)

To Graham - can't speak for everyone but the list looks solid enough. We're all volunteers and I don't think we need to start driving into real world experience or presenting our CVs as proof of suitability. Almost never works that way in an open source project since we're a meritocracy, and I don't see anyone without merit in the list. I've seen anyone on the list on IRC and the mailing lists for ages, so they must be moderately good enough to serve under...er...beside me ;).
 
Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.survivethedeepend.com
OpenID Europe Foundation Irish Representative



From: Pieter Kokx <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 6:55:39 PM
Subject: Re: [zf-contributors] Follow-up regarding community review team

A few days ago, some folks in #zftalk.dev agreed that CR Team would be a
good acronym. Since acronyms as CRT and RT obviously are too confusing,
CR Team looked like the best option to us by then.

--
Best Regards,

Pieter Kokx
PHP Developer
Zend Framework developer


On 07-06-10 18:49, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

> Hey, all --
>
> By my count, on-list and off-, I see the following folks volunteering:
>
>  * Pádraic Brady
>  * Rob Allen
>  * Steven Brown
>  * Shaun Farrell
>  * Pieter Kokx
>  * Dolf Schimmel
>
> which falls perfectly in the 5-7 people range we discussed in the
> thread.
>
> If nobody has any objections, I'd like to say hello to our new community
> team!
>
> I think the first orders of business for them should be:
>
>  * Decide on a name and/or acronym for the team
>  * Determine a period for sitting on the team (3 months, 6 months, 1
>    year, etc.)
>  * Determine how new members will be selected when current members need
>    to resign and/or their volunteer period expires
>
> After that, I think we can start some work. :)
>
> Quick note: I'm heading off to DPC tomorrow, and have a ton of work to
> do between now and then on presentations. I'll monitor the list when I
> can, but be aware that I may not be able to respond until next week.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Mike Willbanks
In reply to this post by weierophinney
Hello,
 
By my count, on-list and off-, I see the following folks volunteering:

 * Pádraic Brady
 * Rob Allen
 * Steven Brown
 * Shaun Farrell
 * Pieter Kokx
 * Dolf Schimmel

which falls perfectly in the 5-7 people range we discussed in the
thread.

If nobody has any objections, I'd like to say hello to our new community
team!


I have no objections with this list and believe it is a good list to start.  I do, however, have a recommendation that it should be brought up for vote once a year (potentially having the current people in the community team voting for their successors or anyone with karma).  This way there is a constant focus within the community and may provide additional variety and contributions from the community.  We all know so well how time can vanish in a heartbeat.

Regards,

Mike
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Graham Anderson
In reply to this post by padraicb
On Monday 07 June 2010 20:29:53 Pádraic Brady wrote:
>I don't think we need to start driving into real world experience

I'm a bit surprised to hear you say this. For things such as code review this
is probably the single most important factor. I would sincerely hope that for
a project of this scope (dare i say it, importance) there was some kind of
vetting of suitability other than giving the nod to whoever put their hand up
first.

I don't wish to come across as melodramatic but I would find it difficult to
have confidence in the quality of contributions (and hence the framework as a
whole) if the code reviewers were relatively inexperienced programmers.

I don't have a wish to know intimate details about the team, but I sure as
heck want to know if they know if they are qualified to review code I may end
up using.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Kevin McArthur-2
I don't think that attitude reflects the people who actually got on this list. They may have volunteered first, but they also happen to be some of the best contributors.

I'm like most of the others who deferred on this, I'm unable to take on a 1hr/day responsibility to this project. But I look forward to working with the new CR team and I have no objection to its membership.

@Graham, You might want to look up the credentials of those on the list -- they're exceptionally well qualified for this job.

Congrats everyone,

Kevin McArthur


Graham Anderson wrote:
On Monday 07 June 2010 20:29:53 Pádraic Brady wrote:
  
I don't think we need to start driving into real world experience
    

I'm a bit surprised to hear you say this. For things such as code review this 
is probably the single most important factor. I would sincerely hope that for 
a project of this scope (dare i say it, importance) there was some kind of 
vetting of suitability other than giving the nod to whoever put their hand up 
first.

I don't wish to come across as melodramatic but I would find it difficult to 
have confidence in the quality of contributions (and hence the framework as a 
whole) if the code reviewers were relatively inexperienced programmers.

I don't have a wish to know intimate details about the team, but I sure as 
heck want to know if they know if they are qualified to review code I may end 
up using.
  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

weierophinney
Administrator
In reply to this post by Ben Scholzen 'DASPRiD'
-- Ben Scholzen <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Monday, 07 June 2010, 08:28 PM +0200):

> Am 07.06.2010 18:49, schrieb Matthew Weier O'Phinney:
> > Hey, all --
> >
> > By my count, on-list and off-, I see the following folks volunteering:
> >
> >  * Pádraic Brady
> >  * Rob Allen
> >  * Steven Brown
> >  * Shaun Farrell
> >  * Pieter Kokx
> >  * Dolf Schimmel
>
> You forgot me ;)… or did I forgot to send an email, I don't know.

I didn't see an email -- though I think there's still room, and that
would give us and odd number of people, which means there's no ability
for a tie vote. :)

Welcome, Ben!


--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

weierophinney
Administrator
In reply to this post by Kevin McArthur-2
-- Kevin McArthur <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Monday, 07 June 2010, 12:26 PM -0700):

> I don't think that attitude reflects the people who actually got on
> this list.  They may have volunteered first, but they also happen to
> be some of the best contributors.
>
> I'm like most of the others who deferred on this, I'm unable to take
> on a 1hr/ day responsibility to this project. But I look forward to
> working with the new CR team and I have no objection to its
> membership.
>
> @Graham, You might want to look up the credentials of those on the
> list -- they're exceptionally well qualified for this job.

+1.

Graham -- all of those who volunteered are well-known in the community,
and have either authored components, participated in the bug hunt days
and/or general maintenance of the framework, or mentored folks on IRC
and/or the mailing lists. They represent a broad spectrum of development
experience, and I have no hesitations whatsoever in having any of them
on the team.

> Graham Anderson wrote:
>
>     On Monday 07 June 2010 20:29:53 Pádraic Brady wrote:
>
>
>         I don't think we need to start driving into real world experience
>
>
>     I'm a bit surprised to hear you say this. For things such as code review this
>     is probably the single most important factor. I would sincerely hope that for
>     a project of this scope (dare i say it, importance) there was some kind of
>     vetting of suitability other than giving the nod to whoever put their hand up
>     first.
>
>     I don't wish to come across as melodramatic but I would find it difficult to
>     have confidence in the quality of contributions (and hence the framework as a
>     whole) if the code reviewers were relatively inexperienced programmers.
>
>     I don't have a wish to know intimate details about the team, but I sure as
>     heck want to know if they know if they are qualified to review code I may end
>     up using.
>
>
>

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Court Ewing
Howdy,

I think you guys are missing the point (or I missed the point... in which case I present my own point):

I know plenty about the people on that list, and I personally am confident that they will do a good job representing the community.  That being said, unless you are heavily invested in the community, you will not know those people, and yet you're going to be expected to send them pull requests and have them review your code and make decisions on your (as a member of the community) behalf.

I do not think, even for a second, that the people on that list are not qualified, but at the moment we are basically saying "take our word for it".  That's pretty much the least open stance we could take on the matter, and the last thing this community needs is to give the impression that new policies or initiatives are being implemented without a measured level of openness in the process.

Since we are not doing straight up elections (which I am fine with), can we not at least be as open as we can about the team that is being set up?  This team should be an extremely public and open part of the community.  Their whole job is to serve as community oversight of the framework's ongoing maintenance and development, so I think the community as a whole deserves to know who is on the team, and why they are qualified to be there.

That being said, I do not see any reason why someone's extensive contributions to the framework cannot serve as the basis for their qualifications in lieu of professional experience (if for some reason that is an issue, which I can't imagine it is).

Court Ewing

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Kevin McArthur <[hidden email]> wrote
(on Monday, 07 June 2010, 12:26 PM -0700):
> I don't think that attitude reflects the people who actually got on
> this list.  They may have volunteered first, but they also happen to
> be some of the best contributors.
>
> I'm like most of the others who deferred on this, I'm unable to take
> on a 1hr/ day responsibility to this project. But I look forward to
> working with the new CR team and I have no objection to its
> membership.
>
> @Graham, You might want to look up the credentials of those on the
> list -- they're exceptionally well qualified for this job.

+1.

Graham -- all of those who volunteered are well-known in the community,
and have either authored components, participated in the bug hunt days
and/or general maintenance of the framework, or mentored folks on IRC
and/or the mailing lists. They represent a broad spectrum of development
experience, and I have no hesitations whatsoever in having any of them
on the team.

> Graham Anderson wrote:
>
>     On Monday 07 June 2010 20:29:53 Pádraic Brady wrote:
>
>
>         I don't think we need to start driving into real world experience
>
>
>     I'm a bit surprised to hear you say this. For things such as code review this
>     is probably the single most important factor. I would sincerely hope that for
>     a project of this scope (dare i say it, importance) there was some kind of
>     vetting of suitability other than giving the nod to whoever put their hand up
>     first.
>
>     I don't wish to come across as melodramatic but I would find it difficult to
>     have confidence in the quality of contributions (and hence the framework as a
>     whole) if the code reviewers were relatively inexperienced programmers.
>
>     I don't have a wish to know intimate details about the team, but I sure as
>     heck want to know if they know if they are qualified to review code I may end
>     up using.
>
>
>

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | [hidden email]
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Graham Anderson
In reply to this post by weierophinney
On Monday 07 June 2010 21:55:36 Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>-- Kevin McArthur <[hidden email]> wrote
>
>(on Monday, 07 June 2010, 12:26 PM -0700):
>> I don't think that attitude reflects the people who actually got on
>> this list.  

Yes, it may sound a little harsh but I am exceptionally fussy when it comes to
this sort of thing. I make no apologies for being demanding about the quality
of personnel who may end up reviewing code I could come to rely on.

>> They may have volunteered first, but they also happen to
>> be some of the best contributors.

In some cases I would probably disagree on this point.

>> @Graham, You might want to look up the credentials of those on the
>> list -- they're exceptionally well qualified for this job.

As I mentioned earlier, I am well aware of the credentials of some of the
people on the list. I'll be frank, I don't agree that everyone on the list is
suitable and I had hoped to provoke some discussion in a round-about way.

I am always wary when a committee suddenly appears in what seems as an almost
knee-jerk reaction. I don't think this process has been given enough thought
but I realise I should have chipped in with my opinions much earlier so this
point is rather moot now.

I'm quite sure my opinion in this will be seen by many as perhaps unseemly,
after all these people have contributed to the framework and volunteered their
time. On the other hand I feel I would be remiss not to voice my concerns.

>+1.
>
>Graham -- all of those who volunteered are well-known in the community,
>and have either authored components, participated in the bug hunt days
>and/or general maintenance of the framework, or mentored folks on IRC
>and/or the mailing lists. They represent a broad spectrum of development
>experience, and I have no hesitations whatsoever in having any of them
>on the team.

I've said my piece and it looks like I would be banging my head against a wall
to persue this. It's entirely possible that I am wrong and every member of the
team will do a sterling job, and I do hope so for the sake of the project; so
after making my objections known I will now drop this subject and let you get
on with things.


Cheers the noo,
Graham
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

padraicb
I appreciate you may have concerns about members of the team, but without specifics (other than names for obvious reasons) it's hard to know what exactly you're looking for. For all I know, you include me in the list of someones you are questioning, and I know I'm not willing in the slightest to discuss my professional experience. I keep my professional life and open source life distinctly separate which disqualifies me automatically based on your suggestions. I prefer to keep my professional career private rather than have it leaking out for every potential employer/customer of the next 40 years to analyse. I suppose I just am something of a private person at heart.

Outside of that, I also don't like delving too much into professional requirements for an open source project. We operate on the basis of a meritocracy. Adding professional requirements would disqualify, as you may be aware, several of the currently noted members for no better reason than they were born a little later than the rest of us. That could be interpreted as a disadvantage, but then I once worked with a 16 year old release manager on another project who could put some of the self-proclaimed professionals to shame. I refuse to judge on age alone, which rules out professional qualifications for another reason.
 
Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.survivethedeepend.com
OpenID Europe Foundation Irish Representative



From: Graham Anderson <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 9:12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [zf-contributors] Follow-up regarding community review team

On Monday 07 June 2010 21:55:36 Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>-- Kevin McArthur <[hidden email]> wrote
>
>(on Monday, 07 June 2010, 12:26 PM -0700):
>> I don't think that attitude reflects the people who actually got on
>> this list. 

Yes, it may sound a little harsh but I am exceptionally fussy when it comes to
this sort of thing. I make no apologies for being demanding about the quality
of personnel who may end up reviewing code I could come to rely on.

>> They may have volunteered first, but they also happen to
>> be some of the best contributors.

In some cases I would probably disagree on this point.

>> @Graham, You might want to look up the credentials of those on the
>> list -- they're exceptionally well qualified for this job.

As I mentioned earlier, I am well aware of the credentials of some of the
people on the list. I'll be frank, I don't agree that everyone on the list is
suitable and I had hoped to provoke some discussion in a round-about way.

I am always wary when a committee suddenly appears in what seems as an almost
knee-jerk reaction. I don't think this process has been given enough thought
but I realise I should have chipped in with my opinions much earlier so this
point is rather moot now.

I'm quite sure my opinion in this will be seen by many as perhaps unseemly,
after all these people have contributed to the framework and volunteered their
time. On the other hand I feel I would be remiss not to voice my concerns.

>+1.
>
>Graham -- all of those who volunteered are well-known in the community,
>and have either authored components, participated in the bug hunt days
>and/or general maintenance of the framework, or mentored folks on IRC
>and/or the mailing lists. They represent a broad spectrum of development
>experience, and I have no hesitations whatsoever in having any of them
>on the team.

I've said my piece and it looks like I would be banging my head against a wall
to persue this. It's entirely possible that I am wrong and every member of the
team will do a sterling job, and I do hope so for the sake of the project; so
after making my objections known I will now drop this subject and let you get
on with things.


Cheers the noo,
Graham
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Vic Farazdagi

On 06/08/2010 01:10 AM, Pádraic Brady wrote:
I appreciate you may have concerns about members of the team, but without specifics (other than names for obvious reasons) it's hard to know what exactly you're looking for. For all I know, you include me in the list of someones you are questioning, and I know I'm not willing in the slightest to discuss my professional experience. I keep my professional life and open source life distinctly separate which disqualifies me automatically based on your suggestions. I prefer to keep my professional career private rather than have it leaking out for every potential employer/customer of the next 40 years to analyse. I suppose I just am something of a private person at heart.

Well, Pádraic, I doubt anyone who has looked through your code, talked to you at IRC, read your emails in ML, reviewed countless (sic!) of your proposals for zf1, read your blog etc etc, has any doubts in your candidature. Not to say that others are not equally good volunteers.

Overall I tend to strongly disagree with Graham - why sth that is brought to contain complexity (that's CR Team) has to introduce yet another layer of complexity etc. Current volunteers are quite good, if anyone has doubts - please cite facts. And bring alternative to the table - I am kind of tired of hearing concerns on ML without *constructive* alternative.

Overall, let them start working - and if anyone would see some mis-qualification - well, he is always welcome to voice his concerns. But let not have yet another long discussion about CR Team member's qualifications - unless, one is prepared to be open enough - and say openly: "remove that and that one, and place me because of.." :))

Thanks,
Vic (torio)


Outside of that, I also don't like delving too much into professional requirements for an open source project. We operate on the basis of a meritocracy. Adding professional requirements would disqualify, as you may be aware, several of the currently noted members for no better reason than they were born a little later than the rest of us. That could be interpreted as a disadvantage, but then I once worked with a 16 year old release manager on another project who could put some of the self-proclaimed professionals to shame. I refuse to judge on age alone, which rules out professional qualifications for another reason.
 
Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.survivethedeepend.com
OpenID Europe Foundation Irish Representative



From: Graham Anderson [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 9:12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [zf-contributors] Follow-up regarding community review team

On Monday 07 June 2010 21:55:36 Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>-- Kevin McArthur <[hidden email]> wrote
>
>(on Monday, 07 June 2010, 12:26 PM -0700):
>> I don't think that attitude reflects the people who actually got on
>> this list. 

Yes, it may sound a little harsh but I am exceptionally fussy when it comes to
this sort of thing. I make no apologies for being demanding about the quality
of personnel who may end up reviewing code I could come to rely on.

>> They may have volunteered first, but they also happen to
>> be some of the best contributors.

In some cases I would probably disagree on this point.

>> @Graham, You might want to look up the credentials of those on the
>> list -- they're exceptionally well qualified for this job.

As I mentioned earlier, I am well aware of the credentials of some of the
people on the list. I'll be frank, I don't agree that everyone on the list is
suitable and I had hoped to provoke some discussion in a round-about way.

I am always wary when a committee suddenly appears in what seems as an almost
knee-jerk reaction. I don't think this process has been given enough thought
but I realise I should have chipped in with my opinions much earlier so this
point is rather moot now.

I'm quite sure my opinion in this will be seen by many as perhaps unseemly,
after all these people have contributed to the framework and volunteered their
time. On the other hand I feel I would be remiss not to voice my concerns.

>+1.
>
>Graham -- all of those who volunteered are well-known in the community,
>and have either authored components, participated in the bug hunt days
>and/or general maintenance of the framework, or mentored folks on IRC
>and/or the mailing lists. They represent a broad spectrum of development
>experience, and I have no hesitations whatsoever in having any of them
>on the team.

I've said my piece and it looks like I would be banging my head against a wall
to persue this. It's entirely possible that I am wrong and every member of the
team will do a sterling job, and I do hope so for the sake of the project; so
after making my objections known I will now drop this subject and let you get
on with things.


Cheers the noo,
Graham


-- 
Victor Farazdagi

Blog      | http://www.phpmag.ru
Twitter   | http://twitter.com/farazdagi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Bento Vilas Boas
HI,

I "know" most of team members they certainly qualify for the job and I also believe the others are also capable.

For now, just let them star working.  This process is taking to long. And this is just the first step. 

They will talk in private, they will delegate tasks, and they will get to know better and I believe that if, if, there are someone on that list that does not qualify it will be the first to step down. 



Best Regards,
Bento Vilas Boas


A 2010/06/07, às 22:22, Vic Farazdagi escreveu:


On 06/08/2010 01:10 AM, Pádraic Brady wrote:
I appreciate you may have concerns about members of the team, but without specifics (other than names for obvious reasons) it's hard to know what exactly you're looking for. For all I know, you include me in the list of someones you are questioning, and I know I'm not willing in the slightest to discuss my professional experience. I keep my professional life and open source life distinctly separate which disqualifies me automatically based on your suggestions. I prefer to keep my professional career private rather than have it leaking out for every potential employer/customer of the next 40 years to analyse. I suppose I just am something of a private person at heart.

Well, Pádraic, I doubt anyone who has looked through your code, talked to you at IRC, read your emails in ML, reviewed countless (sic!) of your proposals for zf1, read your blog etc etc, has any doubts in your candidature. Not to say that others are not equally good volunteers.

Overall I tend to strongly disagree with Graham - why sth that is brought to contain complexity (that's CR Team) has to introduce yet another layer of complexity etc. Current volunteers are quite good, if anyone has doubts - please cite facts. And bring alternative to the table - I am kind of tired of hearing concerns on ML without *constructive* alternative.

Overall, let them start working - and if anyone would see some mis-qualification - well, he is always welcome to voice his concerns. But let not have yet another long discussion about CR Team member's qualifications - unless, one is prepared to be open enough - and say openly: "remove that and that one, and place me because of.." :))

Thanks,
Vic (torio)


Outside of that, I also don't like delving too much into professional requirements for an open source project. We operate on the basis of a meritocracy. Adding professional requirements would disqualify, as you may be aware, several of the currently noted members for no better reason than they were born a little later than the rest of us. That could be interpreted as a disadvantage, but then I once worked with a 16 year old release manager on another project who could put some of the self-proclaimed professionals to shame. I refuse to judge on age alone, which rules out professional qualifications for another reason.
 
Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.survivethedeepend.com
OpenID Europe Foundation Irish Representative



From: Graham Anderson [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 9:12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [zf-contributors] Follow-up regarding community review team

On Monday 07 June 2010 21:55:36 Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>-- Kevin McArthur <[hidden email]> wrote
>
>(on Monday, 07 June 2010, 12:26 PM -0700):
>> I don't think that attitude reflects the people who actually got on
>> this list. 

Yes, it may sound a little harsh but I am exceptionally fussy when it comes to
this sort of thing. I make no apologies for being demanding about the quality
of personnel who may end up reviewing code I could come to rely on.

>> They may have volunteered first, but they also happen to
>> be some of the best contributors.

In some cases I would probably disagree on this point.

>> @Graham, You might want to look up the credentials of those on the
>> list -- they're exceptionally well qualified for this job.

As I mentioned earlier, I am well aware of the credentials of some of the
people on the list. I'll be frank, I don't agree that everyone on the list is
suitable and I had hoped to provoke some discussion in a round-about way.

I am always wary when a committee suddenly appears in what seems as an almost
knee-jerk reaction. I don't think this process has been given enough thought
but I realise I should have chipped in with my opinions much earlier so this
point is rather moot now.

I'm quite sure my opinion in this will be seen by many as perhaps unseemly,
after all these people have contributed to the framework and volunteered their
time. On the other hand I feel I would be remiss not to voice my concerns.

>+1.
>
>Graham -- all of those who volunteered are well-known in the community,
>and have either authored components, participated in the bug hunt days
>and/or general maintenance of the framework, or mentored folks on IRC
>and/or the mailing lists. They represent a broad spectrum of development
>experience, and I have no hesitations whatsoever in having any of them
>on the team.

I've said my piece and it looks like I would be banging my head against a wall
to persue this. It's entirely possible that I am wrong and every member of the
team will do a sterling job, and I do hope so for the sake of the project; so
after making my objections known I will now drop this subject and let you get
on with things.


Cheers the noo,
Graham


-- 
Victor Farazdagi

Blog      | http://www.phpmag.ru
Twitter   | http://twitter.com/farazdagi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Lars Kneschke-2
In reply to this post by Vic Farazdagi
Am Montag 07 Juni 2010, um 23:22:12 schrieb Vic Farazdagi:
Hello all!

> Overall, let them start working - and if anyone would see some
> mis-qualification - well, he is always welcome to voice his concerns.
> But let not have yet another long discussion about CR Team member's
> qualifications - unless, one is prepared to be open enough - and say
> openly: "remove that and that one, and place me because of.." :))

That's how I see it too. Just let them do their work and let's see what will
happen. There is no reason to assume that they are not qualified or will not
act in good faith. And even if some of them are not qualified enough yet, they
will learn from the other team members which are more qualified.

10 points from Germany for the CR team members! :-)

--
Lars Kneschke
Head of Tine 2.0
Metaways Infosystems GmbH
Pickhuben 2, D-20457 Hamburg

Tine 2.0 Open Source Groupware and CRM => http://www.tine20.org 

E-Mail: mailto:[hidden email]
Web: http://www.metaways.de 
Tel:  +49 (0) 40 317031-521
Fax: +49 (0) 40 317031-921
Mobile: +49 (0) 175 9304324
Metaways Infosystems GmbH - Sitz: D-22967 Tremsbüttel
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Ahrensburg HRB 4508
Geschäftsführung: Hermann Thaele, Lüder-H.Thaele
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

keith Pope-4
In reply to this post by weierophinney
On 7 June 2010 17:49, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey, all --
>
> By my count, on-list and off-, I see the following folks volunteering:
>
>  * Pádraic Brady
>  * Rob Allen
>  * Steven Brown
>  * Shaun Farrell
>  * Pieter Kokx
>  * Dolf Schimmel

The team looks good to me :) ++ from me.


>
> which falls perfectly in the 5-7 people range we discussed in the
> thread.
>
> If nobody has any objections, I'd like to say hello to our new community
> team!
>
> I think the first orders of business for them should be:
>
>  * Decide on a name and/or acronym for the team
>  * Determine a period for sitting on the team (3 months, 6 months, 1
>   year, etc.)
>  * Determine how new members will be selected when current members need
>   to resign and/or their volunteer period expires
>
> After that, I think we can start some work. :)
>
> Quick note: I'm heading off to DPC tomorrow, and have a ton of work to
> do between now and then on presentations. I'll monitor the list when I
> can, but be aware that I may not be able to respond until next week.
>
> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> Project Lead            | [hidden email]
> Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
> PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc
>



--
------------
http://www.thepopeisdead.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

drm-4
In reply to this post by Graham Anderson
I have an idea. Let's set up a Community Community Review Team Review
Team, with two members: Graham and Court. They can review the team's
performance. :-P j/k

I myself am more of the "give it a go" type. The review process itself
should be open, and all contributors should be alert to see if it works
well. Just don't be afraid to give a hollar when you see things going
wrong, or even things being obscured. Until then, get rolling, or
nothing gets done.

As a sidenote, how I see it, this CR Team mostly has an advising role,
not so much a decisive role, so as long as all advice is open,
everything is reviewable and therefore open for criticism.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Dolf Schimmel

----- Original message -----
> I have an idea. Let's set up a Community Community Review Team Review
> Team, with two members: Graham and Court. They can review the team's
> performance. :-P j/k

sounds like a great idea, however we should screen its members. Would you you willing to be in the Community Community Community Review Team Review team review team? The members of this team would of course need to be screened by a yet-to-set-up new team...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Follow-up regarding community review team

Shaun Farrell
In reply to this post by drm-4
As a sidenote, how I see it, this CR Team mostly has an advising role, not so much a decisive role, so as long as all advice is open, everything is reviewable and therefore open for criticism.

I agree with this.  I see this role also as a liaison between the community and Zend.  

Remember here was Matt's First email about the CR Team. 


 * Assist contributors in getting patches and features into existing
  components.
  * Act as liaison for contacting a maintainer on behalf of a
    contributor
  * If the maintainer refuses to accept a patch, act as an arbiter
    between the contributor and the maintainer
  * If the maintainer does not respond after a set period of time,
    would evaluate and/or apply the patch for the contributor
  * Would issue pull requests to the Zend team in such instances as the
    above
 * Identify orphaned components
  * Would identify when a component is no longer under active
    maintenance
  * Solicit volunteers to take over maintenance of orphaned components
  * Decide when an orphaned component should be marked as such and
    scheduled for removal (Note: removal can only happen in major
    revisions)
 * Shepherd new proposals.
  * Solicit community feedback on proposals
  * Would put competing proposal authors in touch with each other to
    work on a unified proposal
  * Provide feedback on proposals (including initial decision as to
    whether or not there is enough community interest in including the
    proposed functionality in the framework)
  * Would notify the Zend team when a proposal is ready
  * Would do initial code review on the proposal implementation
  * Would notify the Zend team when the proposed feature is feature
    complete and ready to pull into the master branch


Shaun J. Farrell
Washington, DC

12