commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [proposal] No VOTE needed to elect ASF committers to commons WAS: Re: request karma to commons validator/i18n
Date Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:24:15 GMT
What about an "optimistic" approach? That is, committers _who ask_ with 
a _rationale_ are evaluated thinly and get approval. If they do 
something off the wall, they can be booted out.

Paul

Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> On 08.07.2007, at 20:54, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/07, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/6/07, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > So my proposal is that any ASF committer who wishes to become a
>>> > commons committer just needs to make that request here on the
>>> > commons-dev mailing list and they will granted karma for both commons
>>> > proper and commons sandbox.  Expectation is of course that ASF
>>> > committers joining the commons will "behave"
>>> > (http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/JakartaCommonsEtiquette).
>>>
>>> Obviously I'm +1 on making it easier.
>
> Hm, I know we need active people but...
>
> We have a lot of little code bases. Our individual component code 
> bases don't have many committers. I think we only share a general 
> oversight across different projects. (I think that's also what bites 
> us when we call for release votes) So in that term I do think Commons 
> has a different touch than the usual Apache project. We always have a 
> higher risk of fix-and-leave type contributors I guess.
>
> I am not sure having anyone get commit access as a rule will help us 
> raise the number of people for the individual components. I think 
> though that for existing Apache committers the bar should be fairly 
> low - if it is not already. Still I personally would prefer to see a 
> vote on it. If I have to supply a patch to an Apache project that I am 
> not yet involved in - that's OK. I don't expect to get commit access 
> straight away just because I have an @apache.org address. But being 
> able to come back an say "Guys, I provided a patch and you haven't 
> applied it within weeks. Want me to do it?" seems fair. Either it's a 
> wake-up call "Sorry, I'll do it" or "Well, yeah ...do it! Hope you 
> stick around" and we vote on that guy ..IMHO
>
> Something I would rather would like to see addressed is the question 
> of non-apache contributors becoming committers. We have small 
> codebases compared to many other Apache projects. So essentially that 
> means getting involved is much easier. Does that also mean going 
> through us is the easy way to get an @apache.org address? Or are we 
> aware of all these facts and getting committership is even harder at 
> Commons? (Wondering: How many committer nominations from a non-apache 
> background did we have in the past 2 years?) What about contributions 
> to sandbox projects? Does it matter (in terms of committership) 
> whether you contribute to something that maybe never even gets released?
>
> Our release process has a tendency to frustrate and drive people away 
> too. Maybe also something we could improve to have contributors be 
> more likely to stick.
>
> ...just some RTs.
>
> cheers
> -- 
> Torsten
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message