Backdrop has a leadership team structured to promote participation and collaboration.
Backdrop CMS started its existence as an offshoot or fork of Drupal. Although Backdrop originates from a common codebase with Drupal, its philosophy and organization are distinct. Backdrop practices a policy of focused releases, taking into account the feedback from the community. The overall direction is guided by the Backdrop Project Management Committee (PMC), modeled off of the Apache project.
The direction of Backdrop is guided by the Backdrop Project Management Committee (PMC). The individuals that make up the committee are often but not necessarily committers to the project code repository. Their mission is to ensure that Backdrop follows the ideals of the project philosophy. If needed, it is also within their power to change the project philosophy, by a consensus agreement (a unanimous vote). The PMC handles any issue that has been escalated by one or more core committers or any issue at their discretion, at which time they will provide direction as needed.
The PMC should reflect all perspectives of the Backdrop community. The following constituents should be represented: core developers, back-end developers, front-end developers, site-builders, people familiar with the business of website development, people focused on user-experience, and others (as identified by the community). The PMC should also aim to be inclusive people of different races and genders. One PMC member may represent more than one constituent.Current PMC members:
Each PMC member agrees to serve a two-year term, but may request to end their membership at any time. Additional individuals may be added to the committee by a unanimous vote by the PMC. Any current PMC member can nominate potential new members. Individuals may be removed from the committee by a simple majority vote. Decisions other than core philosophy changes and adding new core maintainers are taken by seeking consensus, with a majority vote as a fallback where needed. In the event of a tie within the PMC, an elected member of the PMC may break the tie. The tie-breaker may be elected at any time by a majority vote of the committee. The currently elected tie-breaker is Nate Haug.
Core committers are responsible for the day-to-day business of reviewing and committing code to the core Backdrop repository. Core committers are enabled to use their discretion when merging pull requests that are in line with the goals of the project.
Core committers are trusted with upholding the philosophies of the Backdrop project, but are not entitled to set the direction of the project or make sweeping changes to subsystems or modules. If there is a question about a change conflicting with the philosophies of the project, the issue should be referred to the PMC for guidance and direction.
Wherever feasible, both core committers and PMC members should play a mentoring role for project contributors, coordinating efforts and providing timely guidance and direction on new initiatives. While early encouragement won't guarantee that a particular change will be merged, it will help focus efforts and ensure time and effort are productively used.Current core committers:
- Nate Haug -- Technical lead
- Wilmoth Shillingford -- Documentation
- Geoff St. Pierre -- Core committer
(Although we currently only have a few core committers, this management structure is intended to have a larger number of committers and a smaller PMC guiding the project; see diagram below.)
In the event of a question or dispute between core committers, a member of the PMC, or the wider community, an issue may be escalated to the PMC for a vote. The vote may be taken via e-mail, phone call, or other means, as long as all members of the PMC are notified of the arranged time and means of the vote. Any PMC member may report the outcome of the vote, but it is required that at least one member of the PMC post notification to the escalated issue in the public issue tracker.
This structure is intended to allow core committers to handle the regular day-to-day work of reviewing and merging code, attempting to avoid a review bottleneck.