forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Brondsema <d...@brondsema.net>
Subject Re: [DRAFT] Forrest Project Guidelines
Date Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:38:59 GMT
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, David Crossley wrote:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > >
> > >>David Crossley wrote:
> > >>...
> > >>
> > >>>Developers
> > >>>----------
> > >>>These people are contributers who make more substantial
> > >>>contributions. They get more involved in discussion,
> > >>>especially discussion about design issues, help with
> > >>>solving major issues, provide patches with new and
> > >>>improved functionality. They would participate on both
> > >>>the "dev" and "user" mailing lists.
> > >>
> > >>Some developers can be given partial or time limited commit access, to
> > >>be able to give a more substantial contribution to the project without
> > >>necessarily becoming stably part of it.
> > >
> > > Then we would need to qualify our statement about how
> > > a committer can become part of the PMC.
> >
> > All committers are part of the PMC. Committers are the ones committed to
> > the project. What about PMC="Project Management Committers"?
>
> Good idea. What a difference a name makes.
>
> > Developers are not part of the PMC and *may* have partial commit access.
>
> Yes that solves it. Some developers are provided task-based
> access from time-to-time.
>
> So the roles are User, Developer, Project Management Committer
> (called "Committer" for short).
>
> > > Gee i am still not happy with this levels of committership,
> > > but i might be getting warmer.
> >
> > It's something that we should use sparingly, focusing not on the person,
> > but on the task.
> >
> > If we want someone on board, then this is not the thing to use.
> > In instead we want a developer to give a hand on a feature for a limited
> > period of time, or for example be in charge of maintaining a skin, then
> > this is what to use.
> >
> > It's very similar to what we have now.
> >
> >   current definition of committer  -> developer with extra access
> >   current definition of pmc member -> committer
> >
> > In fact, did not we have the OO feature committer by a developer? He can
> > be given access to that part. And the lenya skin? The person can be in
> > charge just of that for example. We don't necessarily need to put blocks
> > to svn, just define these spaces in the STATUS file.
> >
> > I am making committer===PMC member===binding voter, as it seems to be on
> > the ASF bylaws. If someone has blanket commit access, votes, and is in
> > the group, he *must* be on the PMC.
>
> This is great. It simplifies everything.
>

Currently we have committers who have chosen not to be part of the PMC.
And new committers may not want to oversee the project, but still be
long-term contributors.  Are we going to require them to be in the PMC?

I think there is a place for Committers who are not Project Management
Committers.  Although for legal protection, I think it is highly advisable
for committers to join the PMC.  Perhaps they could just be inactive in
the PM part.

> > If he is not on the PMC, he has no legal oversight obbligation.
> > All non PMC member that have commit access are thus in the developers'
> > group.
>
> Beaut.
>

-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org

Mime
View raw message