forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [DRAFT] Forrest Project Guidelines
Date Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:35:49 GMT
David Crossley wrote:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>David Crossley wrote:
>>>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"?

Developers are not part of the PMC and *may* have partial commit access.

> 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.

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' 

>>All commit accesses to developers must be given with the direct 
>>supervision of at least one PMC mmember, and must be voted favorably by 
>>the PMC.
> I am not clear what "supervison" means. I would have thought
> that all committers are supervising anyway, because it is
> one responsibility to keep oversight on the svn@forrest
> commit logs.

True. The role is taken from other projects that use this method, and is 
a "mentor" like figure. Let's leave this out for now, and keep the 
global committer group responsible.

>>Being a developer, with or without commit access, is a necessary step 
>>for becoming a project committer.
> Good point.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message