commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <>
Subject Re: [general] Apache + Meritocracy [Was: [logging] logging vs slf4j]
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:58:42 GMT
On 10/08/2011 3:47 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:

> So, why do you want to measure my coding efficiency? Not even my Boss
> (if I would have one) is allowed to do that! Commit points measure my
> coding skills probably, not my human skills.

Commit points as described in my blog measure the number of days in 
which a committer made commits. The measure is independent of the value 
of the commits or the skills of the committer.

So for a git repository, the commit points accumulated by Alice can be 
obtained with the following command:

git log --format='%ad %an' --date=short|uniq|grep Alice|wc -l

That's all there is to it.

> If you have 1 with 200 commit points, and 3 with 30 each, then the one
> is the leader/ruler. If it is to the leaders liking, then a consens
> can be found. If not, then the leader makes a decision. This is no
> consens for people on a same level. But this "same level" is what I
> like on the ASF. I am on the same level as everybody else in this
> project even when others have done so much more.

Votes based on commit points are necessary only when consensus cannot be 
reached. The default actions is to discuss a given proposal and try to 
reach consensus. Only after repeated failures is a decision made by a 
vote weighted by commit points.

> The answer is, fellows trust me. If I vote somebody in, because of his
> merits, then the merit is not code, it is trust. You cannot measure
> trust and respect in codelines or commit messages.

You can trust someone without systematic agreement. There are many 
people which I like, respect and trust without being always in agreement 
with them. Presumably, the same goes for most people.

Committocracy addresses the situation where consensus cannot be reached.

> Why commitocracy? Just because I could block a decision of my fellow?
> If people are afraid that I could block decisions, then they should
> not vote me into their project.

As the number of committers grow, it becomes harder and harder to reach 
consensus on certain divisive issues.

> There is one difference between Commitocracy and Meritocracy (as the
> ASF understands it). The ASF model is around community success, the
> Commitocracy model is around software success.

Committocracy is essentially about community building. I don't think it 
makes sense to talk about a community governance model such as 
committocracy without the community of committers being at the center.

>> Governance models are not cast in stone. The apache model will need to
>> improve over time or eventually become obsolete.
> As everything else in this world. At the moment I can see a huge
> number of projects coming to the ASF; a lots of new people coming
> through the incubator. I cannot say how many leave or unsatisfied. We
> would need to do an empiristic research to know that. But at the
> moment my feeling is, it works very well.

Indeed, evolution applies to most ecosystems.

> I have read the blog post in question several times; I simply cannot
> like it, i have tried to understand everything. Committocracy is not
> the answer, at least not for me.

Sure. No problem.

> I would like to add that I have full respect to your (Cekis) ideas and
> if something on my post is offending then it is because I am not very
> good with english. I simply don't like the model, thats all :-)

No worries.

> Cheers,
> Christian

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message