commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
Subject Re: Adding a committer : Catch-22
Date Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:34:59 GMT
On 2/19/02 3:27 AM, "Paul Hammant" <Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> I am trying to add a committer to commons-sandbox/altrmi.  The fellow in
> question is heavily involved with "Enterprise Object Broker" hosted at
> sourceforge which uses AltRMI.
> 
> The commons charter, at present, does not allow for a person to be added
> who is not currently a jakarta-* committer.
> 
> I need advise, because it seems to be this is insolvable.
> 

I agree, and this is my POV as well.

When you proposed to make AltRMI a commons component, I suggested that you
get two more committers, as the Jakarta guidelines suggest that 3 committers
are required to add a new sourcebase.  The spirit of this, as I understand
it, is to make sure that there are 3 interested, dedicated people behind a
codebase ("active, involved developers") to ensure the life of it in case
one person stops working on it.

Of course in commons, the charter is vague, and we can appeal to a whole set
of non-binding guidelines to hand-wave this issue away, but I don't think we
should do that.

Now, since then, I have watched you, Paul, work diligently on AltRMI with no
loss of focus, and I have to say I am impressed.  I also believe that you
aren't trivially trying to add this person just to get committers.  I
*really* respect that, as you could have just gotten two others and claimed
they were committers.

Now, the commons charter says nothing about not allowing a person to be
added who isn't a jakarta-* committer.  It states, if it really matters -

"The subproject will host a CVS repository available to all Jakarta
committers as a workplace for new packages or other projects."

It does not have any language pertaining to exclusion.

(aside : read the next line - "Before release to the public, code or
documentation developed here must be sponsored by a Jakarta subproject."
There's a weird one...)

Anyhow, believe it or not, I also agree with Ted about the importance of
making sure that being a Jakarta committer means something.

Still, I feel that the sandbox is a great way to introduce people to the
jakarta community - I mean, they are 'harmless' there.  I think making a
mistake and adding a committer to sandbox is much easier to deal with than
adding to commons, due to our "commit one, commit all" policy.

So it comes down to 2 options, doesn't it?

1) Vote on your new person to make him a committer in sandbox.

2) Vote on your new person to make him a committer in commons.

The status of AltRMI would only be relevant here because as a component,  we
still would then have to vote on your committer, and as a commons committer.
If we do allow sandbox committers, then we can indeed see if the person
really is interested and dedicated, and when AltRMI comes over the fence,
you can with confidence bring committers you know are, well, committed :)

I don't know how to make everyone happy here :)

My 0.02

geir


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr.                                     geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
"Now what do we do?"


Mime
View raw message