Three React-ions to the Facebook PATENTS License

There are really three aspects to your project’s decision (to use React.js or not based on the BSD+Patents license), and it’s important to consider each of them. You really need to consider which aspects are important to your project’s success — and which ones don’t really matter to you.
(See the updated FAQ about the PATENTS issue on Medium!)

  • Legal — both details of the license and PATENTS file that Facebook offers React.js under, and some realistic situations where the patent clauses might actually come into play (which is certainly rare in court, but it’s the chilling effect of uncertainty that’s the issue)
  • Technology — are other libraries sufficiently functional to provide the features your project needs? Does a project have the capacity to make a change, if they decided to?
  • Community — how does the rest of the open source community-of-communities see the issue, and care about your choices? This includes both future buyers of a startup, as well as future partners, as well as future talent (employees) or contributors (open source developers).

Continue reading Three React-ions to the Facebook PATENTS License

What Apache needs in a Board

The ASF is holding it’s annual member’s meeting soon, where we will elect a new 9-member Board of Directors for a one-year term.  I’ve been honored with a nomination to run for the board again, as have a number of other excellent Member candidates.  While I’m writing my nomination statement – my 2016 director statement and earlier ones are posted – I’ve been thinking about what Apache really needs in a board to manage the growth of our projects and to improve our operations.

Continue reading What Apache needs in a Board

Behind the scenes at Apache: Corporate Org Chart

You probably use contribute to several Apache projects.  But do you know what goes on behind the scenes at the ASF?  Besides all the work of the 200+ project communities, the ASF has an annual budget of about one $million USD to fund the services our projects use.  How we manage providing these services – and governing the corporation behind the projects – continues to change and improve.

Continue reading Behind the scenes at Apache: Corporate Org Chart

How Apache *really* works

How much do you know about the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) and the many Apache projects we host? Did you know we’re holding our annual Members meeting to elect our board of directors and new Members in just a few days?

I’m often surprised by the variety of basic questions and misunderstandings I hear in the software world about how the ASF really works. We’ve written plenty of documentation about the Apache Way and our governance, but let’s try a different approach. I’d like to interview myself to try to explain some things. Continue reading How Apache *really* works

Apache Governance – Projects First

When push comes to shove and full consensus on governance matters at the ASF or at Apache projects isn’t easily found, it’s important to consider what our underlying objectives are. The mission of the ASF is to produce software for the public good. That’s a good start, but like many concise mission statements, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

There are several aspects of how we expect Apache projects to work that we believe are critical to our mission’s success and longevity. These include things like The Apache Way of: volunteer and collaborative led community built software projects; using the permissive Apache license; and having a consistent and stable brand, infrastructure services, and home for all Apache projects.

We – as in the bulk of the Apache membership and especially the directors that we elect to the board (and thus the corporate officers the board appoints to set policy) – believe that these few core organizational and community management principles are so important for our long term mission that we require these behaviors of all Apache projects. Part of having a consistent brand is showing some level of consistent behavior with the products you produce. Having a shared set of infrastructure services likewise simplifies the process for users to find and use our products. Using the permissive Apache license means that we give maximum freedom to the users of our software, meaning that more users are likely to choose it.

But beyond these core principles, ones we have carefully crafted through experience working on Apache projects and have attempted to minimize when prudent, how do we decide where the ASF should go in the future, or what other, more detailed principles might be important to us? While the officers and directors set the official policies of the ASF as an organization, we look to the constructive input of all Apache members when discussing these ideas.

One recurring meme when discussing “What else should the ASF be/do” has been: “Projects first, or Foundation first?” I.e. is the ASF here to serve the needs of our Apache projects, or have Apache projects chosen to come here to follow the direction of the ASF? Should the ASF decide what kinds of projects we want to join, and decide The One True Technology; or should we simply see what projects show up, and try to support them?

If you picture Eclipse, you can see an example of “Foundation first”: the Eclipse board and leadership – mostly through it’s paying corporate sponsors and de facto corporate-led projects – has an overall vision and drive that explicitly provides direction for it’s projects. Eclipse has full-time staff devoted to “…1) IT Infrastructure, 2) IP Management, 3) Development Process, and 4) Ecosystem Development.” Similarly, the Eclipse board is partially made of appointed members from their Strategic Developer and Strategic Consumer corporations. That leads to strong consistency and direction, primarily for the benefit of the corporations directly or indirectly funding Eclipse projects.

“Projects first” means that the ASF exists to serve the needs of any projects who choose to join us, and who willingly agree to follow our basic rules, like using our license, consensus-driven decisions, and running projects independently of corporations. Our mission is not on behalf of the many corporations who pay their employees to donate code to Apache projects. Our mission is to provide software for the public good – that is, the end users of our software, and the larger world around us.

The ASF doesn’t have an agenda beyond that mission. We don’t have a strategic plan for acquiring projects in specific technologies or from specific corporations. We rely on providing a stable and friendly home for like-minded individuals and communities to build software… for the public good. We certainly hope – and time has shown – that this model will attract vibrant communities that will build useful software. There are plenty of Apache Members and Committers who are passionate about sharing their experiences in software development with others, which is great. But as an organization, we don’t have a strategic plan for seeking out new projects: we believe the best process is to let like-minded projects seek us out.

To ensure that Apache projects focus on the public good, we also require our projects to be run independently of undue commercial influence. Apache projects don’t exist to serve as a vehicle for the corporations who may have donated technology or employee developer hours to them – they exist for the broader public good.

This independence is fundamental to the long-term health of our projects, and to the ASF. It both makes the ASF a place where potentially competing corporations can feel comfortable collaborating on technology (which gets us lots of software for our mission) and also seems to attract plenty of individuals who are interested in participating in our projects – even when changing employers. This independence means that an independent Apache project can continue to exist for the benefit of it’s users even if one of the corporations donating technology to it decides to change direction.

But beyond the core requirements here – ones designed to keep project governance in our independent communities – the ASF strives to not add any additional requirements, but rather to provide the best home to like-minded Apache projects that we can. So in that way, we try to remain focused going forward on putting “Projects first”.

Actually, I should amend that. We do have the core project requirements; ones associated with being an Apache project. So I should really say that we put “Apache projects first”. But beyond that Apacheness that the ASF has developed over 13 years and 190 project communities, we strive to not have an agenda – other than to support those Apache project communities who choose to join us as best we can.

People still reading may also be interested in learning how governance at Apache works.

Apache Corporate Policies

The old saying goes that one of the last things done in many open source projects is the documentation. Taking this to the organizational level at the ASF – the corporate level – that’s both all too true, and not at all true.

Questions regularly come up across various ASF lists about all sorts of corporate operations, and there are a fair number of times when it takes a while to get the right answer to the questioner. Luckily, we have a lot of very experienced Members and Officers who are there to ensure the right thing does happen – but I believe that the answers come be a lot quicker if we had better documentation for these corporate operations. Namely, all the stuff that’s not dealing with code.

This is not to say we haven’t documented how the ASF as a corporation works: a lot of effort has gone into our standard operating procedures, and we’ve both covered the basic legalistic bases, as well as put serious thought into minimizing the absolute rules at Apache while providing lots of best practices. These procedures – and the discussions of pros and cons and whys explaining how they came to be that way – are all available… on the mailing lists, somewhere. 😉

The foundation of our corporate policies is The Apache Way. Understanding that, and understanding that the fundamental mission of the ASF is to produce software code for the public good, leads you to many of the policies we practice, both at the ASF and in Apache projects. To start with, here’s a brief laundry list of how to learn about Apache Corporate Policies.

  • Apache Corporate Governance and org chart describe organizationally how the ASF as a corporation is run. This also makes clear the distinction between organizational governance – the board, membership, and officers as a whole; and technical governance – the fact that PMCs independently manage their projects.
  • The Foundation page provides the overall corporate mission, and links to the Board and Membership pages with the nitty gritty of corporate records.
  • The pages are both a generic project runbook, technical issues FAQ, and partial corporate operations listing. While these are written by committers, for committers and developers, they have a lot of great information on how all sorts of things at the ASF and all Apache projects should work.
  • Another key overview of organizational documentation is the Community Development project site. This aims to be a more human-friendly signpost to find the relevant technical widget or policy information elsewhere.
  • The Apache Incubator is another important place where proper procedures are documented: this is where we try to explain to prospective new communities how an Apache project should be run before the ASF formally accepts them.

Here are some other principles and rules we follow that are important to understand.

  • Transparency. All technical decisions on Apache projects are reflected on publicly archived mailing lists. The phrase “If it didn’t happen on the list, it didn’t happen” is not just an old saying, it’s the rule at Apache.
  • Respect. One of the primary exceptions to transparency are discussions about individuals. Votes on new committers and PMC members are typically held in private lists amongst a whole PMC, since this both allows better honesty of expression, as well as prevents embarrassment in rare cases where a nominee is not voted in (yet).
  • Organizational Oversight. While the ASF relies on volunteers to produce the code that we give away, we keep it organized by having oversight: the PMCs ensure that projects are managed appropriately; the board ensures that PMCs manage themselves, and corporate officers ensure that the ASF’s corporate bits are covered.
  • Member Oversight. Members of the ASF have the final level of oversight of the board and the corporate officers. All members are allowed to review any private mailing list within the ASF, including any private@ list for projects. Members do not receive special status on any lists; merely the ability to oversee all operations. The only exceptions are specifically restricted mailing aliases that are used for legally protected communications or infrastructure root level issues.

Note that while Members have a broad oversight ability within all aspects of the ASF’s operations, organizational matters like this kind of oversight are not transparent outside of the ASF. While we certainly strive to make public as many of the great lessons we’ve learned about governing community-led software projects, the operations of governance are kept primarily within the Membership.

Partly, this is due to all the lawyers. The details of running a million-dollar corporation require a fair amount of legal work. We strive to publish as much information as is practical in things like board minutes; however the actual corporate processes are done privately.

Partly, this is because part of a meritocracy is allowing those who do to do the work. Individuals who are trusted and useful to Apache projects are elected as committers or PMC members, and therefore can help directly govern those projects. Similarly, individuals who show wisdom and effort towards the goals of the ASF may be elected as Members, and therefore can help elect the board who will appoint the officers to ensure the ASF continues running smoothly.

A great place to ask questions about these kinds of issues is the Community Development mailing list.

Meritocracy and Hierarchy at Apache

Apache is actually governed in two ways: by the meritocracy of the Apache Way, and the hierarchy of the Apache Software Foundation. We strive to govern ourselves as much by meritocracy (and consensus) as possible, and as little by hierarchy as is practical for non-profit corporation. This has a number of both practical effects, as well as a number of social corollaries.

The ASF prides itself in running as a community-based meritocracy of peers. That is, within each project community, people participate as individuals and gain merit as measured by that community. The community recognizes your merit by voting people in as committers or PMC members. A new committer can vote on certain kinds of code changes, and can checkin their own code. PMC members vote on new committers and product releases.

In Apache projects the underlying cliché is correct: those who are doing the work get to make the decisions. A healthy community will seek consensus over the direction of the project, and typically only uses [VOTE]s to solve thorny technical issues that don’t come to a clear consensus. Similarly, PMC members each have one vote on elections for new committers or PMC members; decisions within projects are made by the community as a whole. Technical governance is always done by meritocracy.

Even within the Foundation – i.e. the Delaware registered non-profit corporation that makes the ASF a legal entity – we strive to govern by meritocracy as well. Nominating new members and electing the board of directors are the obvious rights of members, and these are discussed and judged based on individuals’ merit towards the various Apache projects and to the ASF as a whole.

Similarly while the board appoints individuals to serve as corporate officers with specific delegated powers, all Apache members are allowed to subscribe to any mailing lists and participate across various ASF activities. Various members step up to work on policy, corporate, legal, treasury, and many other tasks that are needed in any corporation, always working with the relevant officers. Again, those who do the work decide how it gets done.

In these organizational tasks, it’s not always as clear how to reach consensus on contentious issues. Social issues or corporate governance questions don’t often have as simple a metric to measure against as technical issues do. Code either works or it doesn’t; corporate policy often has a very different kind of judgement. Similarly, with an active membership (with many very passionate individuals!), finding consensus on non-technical questions amongst 100+ individuals is often difficult. Here, hierarchy steps in to govern.

In most cases this works smoothly. Either the relevant officer will make a policy decision and publish it, or the board will pass a resolution or clearly ask for a change. While the whole community – the membership, the various PMCs of Apache projects – may not have a consensus on the decision, it is still policy, and projects will generally work to make the change.

In some cases, this doesn’t. A key way that the board ensures there is sufficient oversight of all Apache projects is by requiring reporting: monthly for officers; quarterly for PMCs / projects. There have been cases where PMCs have not reported regularly, or have not provided sufficient details to the board’s satisfaction in their reports. In these cases, the board will require a new or updated report. This is not a question of merit, or getting a consensus: this is an order. Non-response to a board request or not following an officer’s policy will and does result in the board stepping in to force changes within the project. As they say in politics, officers serve at the pleasure of the board.

It seems that sometimes this switch from meritocracy – where everyone in the PMC has an equal say, and they reach consensus – to hierarchy – where the board says “jump” – sometimes catches people by surprise. Sometimes, it seems that some PMC members just never really thought about the fact that the ASF is a legal corporation, and must follow certain rules. Other times, this surprise is clearly exacerbated by poor communication in specific cases between the board and projects. While cases like this really aren’t a choice – the board can and will dissolve or reconstitute projects (always as a last resort!) – it is important to clearly explain the issues and why this kind of hierarchy is needed in some cases.

Has anyone else had this feeling? Of switching between meritocracy, and consensus among the community, to hierarchy, and the board simply making a decision? How can we improve the handling of future issues like this, to ensure we keep the maximum meritocratic freedom within our projects, while still ensuring the legal shield of the ASF is secure and can function for the long term?

I’ve been thinking about this lately since I recently drew up a new org chart here for the ASF as a whole. Note that the hierarchy part only comes in on organizational, legal, and similar matters – technical decisions are always in the meritocratic hands of the PMCs and projects. More reading can be found on some of these excellent slides about Apache and open source.

Apache projects are technically independent

In the earlier essay I wrote on Apache project independence (since promoted to an article on the Apache Community Development website) I missed a critical bit of independence that I think we should add to the ComDev site.

Apache projects are technically independent

While Apache PMCs provide a report of their operations to the Board on a quarterly basis, they are technically independent of the Board. PMCs are free to collaboratively decide their project’s technical direction however they choose. While the Board holds PMC chairs and PMCs accountable for ensuring that their methods are appropriate – following the Apache Way and the few other rules at Apache – the Board does not exercise any technical direction over Apache projects.

This is a critical point to understand. There is no top-down direction at the ASF in terms of what technology we implement or what kinds of projects we seek out or support. All technical choices are made by the individual committers and PMC members within their project communities – i.e. the individuals actually doing the coding decide where the coding will go.

This applies equally to the Apache Incubator, as the gateway of new project proposals at Apache. The ASF has noagenda of what projects it wants to find, nor do we have a corporate strategy for new project acquisition. Project communities that want to come to the ASF are welcome – and will be reviewed in the Incubation process for community health and diversity, and for IP clearance and licensing. But not for technical merit.

The essence is: if there is a sufficiently diverse community who chooses to live by the Apache Way, the ASF is happy to host them. The fact that there is sufficient diverse community means that people are interested in the technology. Similarly, the Apache Attic awaits projects that may seem interesting technically, but fail to have a sufficiently diverse and active community to maintain them.

So – worthy to add to the ComDev page?

Apache Governance: Membership

This is the third in a series of essays describing Apache governance. The ASF is a non-profit, membership-based corporation; as such the Members of the ASF have a role similar to shareholders in a publicly traded corporation.

In this essay, the term “member” specifically means someone who is a Member of the Foundation itself, as elected per the corporate bylaws.


The ASF is a membership corporation, so Members serve a similar role as shareholders do in publicly traded corporations. Members may propose new candidate members, may cast one vote in new candidate elections, and may cast one vote in board elections.

Members are not empowered to speak officially on behalf of the ASF as a whole, nor do they have any special rights to influence technical direction of any Apache projects that they are not otherwise elected as a committer or PMC member on. While members often volunteer and serve in many capacities both at the Foundation level and within various Apache projects, their only specific organizational rights are to vote in board and member elections.

The Apache Incubator is special: any ASF member may request to be added to the Incubator PMC without a vote. Within the Incubator PMC, members may serve as official mentors or champions to incoming podlings, as well as voting on Incubator policy and releases of podlings undergoing incubation. In this way, members work to mentor podling communities and guide them to the Apache Way and eventual graduation as a top level Apache project.


Members act as shareholders of the corporation. As such, each member has a single vote on electing directors to the board; similarly members may vote on new nominees to membership. Members are eligible to nominate new candidate members and to nominate individuals to the board.

Organizationally, members do not have specific standing within any Apache projects or Incubator podlings. However most members are active as individuals within multiple Apache projects on their own technical or social merits, and once elected as a member often find more ways to get involved in more Apache projects.

While the board and relevant officers are directly responsible for providing oversight to the many Apache projects, members often work within many Apache projects to help ensure projects run smoothly and follow the Apache Way.


The central place for member-focused announcements and discussions is the privately archived members@ mailing list. This is used for a wide variety of purposes: both proposing and discussing new technical or policy ideas within the ASF, announcing marriages or births within member’s families or other major social events, and any formal announcements to the membership from the board or corporate officers.

By policy, members have the right to inspect and review the archives of all mailing lists at Apache. This policy is designed to ensure that every member can independently inspect all corporate operations, and the operations of all Apache projects. Thus members may review all private mailing lists (for example) about internal legal affairs, fundraising, security issues, as well as any private@ lists used by our Apache projects’ PMCs.

While members may send messages to any private lists, they do not automatically receive any special merit in terms of influencing the technical direction of Apache projects. Merit in Apache projects is gained within each individual project community, and membership does not convey any other special privileges.


The board typically holds an Annual Members Meeting, where a new board of directors is elected, and new member candidates may be voted upon. Meetings are currently held on a private IRC channel, as an alternative to a traditional conference call, where any reports are read and members may ask questions. The meeting has a 48 hour recess for voting, and then reconvenes to announce results and complete the meeting: this allows members who may not be able to personally attend the first portion of the meeting to attend the second half, as well as to conduct voting over email using our own secure voter tool. Members who are unable to attend any of the 2 day meeting period may provide for another member to proxy their attendance and votes.

The board often holds interim Special Members Meetings in between Annual Meetings, primarily to give members a chance to nominate new candidate members and be voted in. Members also use Special and Annual meetings to raise additional questions or issues about Foundation operations – although members usually just raise questions to the board or to any ASF officer at any time over our usual mailing lists. Members and invited guests are welcome at all Members meetings.

Given the distributed and volunteer nature of the ASF, official in-person meetings of the Membership are no longer held. All Foundation or project business is conducted on normal mailing lists – although some of the lists are private. Members do often meet in small groups in person – although this is for social reasons, and often involves a meal or drinks. Many members and committers also traditionally attend the ASF’s annual ApacheCon conference.


All members have the ability to nominate new individuals as candidates for membership. The amount and types of merit that existing members look for in Apache committers varies, but always includes some significant technical or other contribution to one or more of our projects, as well as a clear interest and understanding of the Apache Way. In most cases, these contributions and traits are displayed over a significant period of time, usually over a year of engagement in one or more Apache projects.

Note that it is not required to be a committer before being considered for membershp, however as a practical matter, in the vast majority of cases any potentially worthy individual has already become a committer on some Apache project. At least two individuals have been elected as members without being committers first, in each case for non-coding contributions in mentoring on the Apache Way or other organizational work.

Many newly elected members are surprised (pleasantly!) to be told they’ve been elected. Typically, being nominated and elected as a new member is something that happens well after the nominee has a clear track record and a positive influence on Apache projects for some time; in hindsight, a frequent comment is “isn’t So-and-So a member already? They do such good work!”. Individuals asking to be made a member (or worse, insisting you should be elected!) is culturally frowned upon. In a perhaps counter-intuitive way, being considered for membership is something that requires real effort acting over a measureable time, but without making it obvious that you’re seeking recognition.

Candidate members are voted on as a simple majority vote (more yes’es than no’s) at Annual or Special member’s meetings. Voting is performed using custom written voting software with secret ballots.

Within the Membership, merit is equal; all members have an equal vote and ability to propose change within the ASF. Membership is a notably helpful factor in being considered for the board or in appointment to officer positions at the ASF, although the most important factor is demonstrated merit within the particular project or the ASF as a whole.


The ability of members to influence the ASF is simultaneously major and immaterial. On one hand, members vote on new candidate members, and more importantly vote on the Board of Directors, which clearly affects strategic policies of the ASF. On the other hand, membership grants individuals no other special merit within any of our projects, and is not an official position within the legal corporation itself.

The perceived importance of membership is likewise a dichotomy. Many members are quite modest about their membership, and a frequently heard comment is that “oh, they really deserve to be recognized more than I did”. For many, being elected a member was not a goal or title that individuals were pursuing; rather, they were naturally doing their own work (at an Apache project), and were then recognized for it.. Many members list their affiliation on their resume (or LinkedIn, etc.); some do not.

Recognition of membership varies widely outside of the ASF: some software companies don’t seem to care what the ASF is or what membership means; a few software companies have strongly encouraged their employees to become committers or members, and gaining one of those roles is a notable prestige bonus within those companies. Likewise, a number members or officers of the ASF are frequently sought out as speakers at open source conferences.

Members share both the community of all other members, as well as often serving as bridges across the various Apache projects they are already involved in. Many members also volunteer extra time to serve as mentors, both within the ASF working with our projects and communities, and outside of it, mentoring others or speaking at conferences.


The membership as a whole and individually does not provide technical direction for any Aapche projects directly; every PMC is free to manage it’s technical direction independently. PMCs are the governing body for their project, and are expected to manage the project’s technology in the best interest of the whole project community, independent of outside commercial influence.

This is similar to how the board does not set technical direction for projects: this is a key reflection of how the ASF is intentionally structured to provide maximum freedom to it’s projects. The board and the ASF membership are happy to provide a home to any software project communities that are willing to follow the Apache Way. The mission of the ASF is to provide software for the common good: we are happy to help like-minded communities to provide that software; are confident that communities will form around software that is useful; and understand that there are many different ways to effectively and collaboratively build software.

In the case of members, nearly all members do participate in a number of Apache projects – as individuals based on their merit within the specific projects. Simply being elected a member does not confer any additional abilities in terms of other projects. Many members chose to serve as ambassadors of the Apache Way, and usually get involved in more projects as time goes on.


Apache Governance: Project Management Committees

This is the second in a series of essays describing Apache governance. Fundamentally, the most important organization at the ASF is a PMC, or Project Management Committee. These are the actual groups that decide what software our projects release, and as such do the bulk of the actual work of the ASF.


Apache projects are managed by Project Management Committees (PMCs), comprised of committers elected within a specific project community to provide oversight for the project for the ASF and to decide the release strategy for the project. PMC members are expected to act as individuals, making decisions for the best interest of the project when acting on PMC or development lists.

Each project’s PMC is independent. PMCs are free to set community and technical direction for their project, and are directly responsible for overseeing releases and the healthy development of their communities. PMCs are responsible for ensuring their project follows certain core requirements set by the board or other corporate officers of the ASF, like following Legal, Branding, and Infrastructure related requirements, along with ensuring their community operates within the basic outline of the Apache Way.

PMC members nominate new contributors to the project as committers, and PMC members cast votes on electing new committers to the project. PMC members also have binding votes on any project matters.


The board creates new PMCs to manage specific named projects by resolution at monthly meetings. New top level projects (TLPs) are created from podlings in the Apache Incubator after a successful graduation vote from Incubation. The board appoints a Vice President – an officer of the corporation – to serve as the chair of the PMC itself when creating the PMC.

PMC Chairs – who are VPs – serve as normal PMC members, with one vote on project matters just like other PMC members. The primary duty of a PMC chair is providing quarterly reports to the board about the health and status of their project. PMC chairs are expected to subscribe to the board@ mailing list, and be aware of any board concerns about the project, and are responsible for working with the PMC as a whole to address any board concerns.

When PMCs elect new potential PMC members or existing members resign, the chair of a project requests an “ACK” from the board. Once one director ACK’s email is sent recognizing the change in the PMC membership, and after a 72 hour wait, the PMC chair may update the official roster of the members of that PMC. The ACK process is designed to ensure that all PMC changes are explicitly acknowledged by the board, and the waiting period ensures that all directors have a chance to object or comment on any improper changes. Changes in PMC chairs are only made by board resolution at monthly meetings, since this involves appointment of an officer of the ASF.

As official committees of the ASF, PMCs provide the legal oversight of project operations and releases, ensuring that software releases are made on behalf of the ASF as an organization, and not as individuals. This helps to ensures that any legal liability for the products of Apache projects is born by the ASF and not by our committers individually. All PMC chairs provide quarterly reports to the board, which ensures that the board has oversight of all the projects of the Foundation.


PMC members should always be subscribed to their project’s private@ list, and certainly should be subscribed to at least the dev@ list to be aware of the operations of the project.

Virtually all PMC communication should happen on the dev@ list or any other appropriate public mailing list. The private@ list for each PMC should only be used for matters that require confidentiality, such as discussing personnel matters or voting in new committers or PMC members, or security-related issues that have not yet been publicly disclosed. Ensuring that PMC discussions about the future of the project are held on the public dev@ list ensures that all of the community – including non-committers – can follow the discussion and comment on issues. While only PMC members or committers have binding votes on project matters, healthy PMCs certainly work with the larger community of their project.

PMCs are free to use JIRA/Bugzilla, wikis, and other infrastructure-hosted tools that provide for public view and comment, along with the normal project mailing lists. PMCs should make specific requests to the Infrastructure team for services that the project desires.


Some PMCs sponsor regular or occasional in person meetings, teleconferences, or IRC chats to brainstorm project ideas, but are expected to bring all information back to public lists for further discussion and to make final decisions. Many PMCs either directly organize, or have contributors or organizations in their technical space organize Meetups, BarCamps, or other in-person events focused on end user education and technical information sharing.

Given the distributed and volunteer nature of our projects, in-person meetings of PMCs are quite rare. All project business is conducted on normal public mailing lists.


PMCs are free to set the bar for merit within their projects, as long as decision making is done in a collaborative fashion as in the Apache Way. Healthy PMCs will regularly review contributions from non-committers – both specific code patches, bugs reported or commented on, or just helpful interaction on their project lists – to evaluate contributors as potential committers. Ensuring that PMC members are helping to mentor helpful new contributors to their projects helps to ensure a healthy and growing project community.

PMCs vary significantly in the level of commitment and work expected to be considered for a committership. Some PMCs vote in new PMC members typically from their existing committers (i.e. the progression is contributor -> vote -> committer -> vote -> PMC), while other PMCs always elect new committers into the PMC simultaneously (contributor -> vote -> committer & PMC member). PMCs are solely responsible for managing votes and granting commit privileges for new committers; however new PMC members elected must always be ACK’d by the board before they are officially added to the PMC.

Merit within one PMC is not transferable to other PMCs; each project’s committer list is independently managed by it’s own PMC. PMC members or committers with a long history on one project will often be known by their past activities by other project’s PMC members, but they are expected to build merit on each separate project they wish to become a committer on.


While only PMC members have binding votes on project releases, in general PMC members participate equally with their project committers on the dev@ list. PMC members can help to ensure a healthy and diverse project community by ensuring the project’s mailing lists are welcoming to newcomers and that community standards are promoted on it’s mailing lists.

While there are many projects with overlapping communities – and therefore some shared personal or technical relationships – fundamentally each project is it’s own community in terms of the bulk of project work. While all projects are part of the overall ASF, and as such share certain basic requirements and bits of the Apache Way, all technical direction and most of the community focus is within each project individually.

PMCs are expected to report on the health and diversity of their project’s community to the board. While there are no strict requirements on the makeup of PMC members (in terms of employment or affiliation of the individuals on the PMC), the board does expect PMCs to operate independently of outside commercial influence. PMCs that are unable or unwilling to ensure their actions are on behalf of the whole community – or act in ways targeted to specific commercial interests – will be contacted by the board and required to make corrections.


The board does not provide technical direction for any of it’s projects or activities; every PMC is free to manage it’s technical direction independently. PMCs are the governing body for their project, and are expected to manage the project’s technology in the best interest of the whole project community, independent of outside commercial influence.

While this may be a surprise to some, it is a key reflection of how the ASF is intentionally structured to provide maximum freedom to it’s projects. The board and the ASF are happy to provide a home to any software project communities that are willing to follow the Apache Way. The mission of the ASF is to provide software for the common good: we are happy to help like-minded communities to provide that software; are confident that communities will form around software that is useful; and understand that there are many different ways to effectively and collaboratively build software.


One of the most important pieces of advice I’d personally give to PMC members is to feel a sense of leadership and responsibility for their projects as independent projects. Apache relies on it’s PMC members to ensure that their projects are managed in an open and fair manner, and that their projects act to serve the public interest by providing free software under the Apache License. In many ways, PMC membership is a duty to the project as a whole, and a call to set aside outside influence to act for the best interests of the project’s active community itself.