forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DRAFT] Forrest Project Guidelines
Date Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:40:30 GMT
Dave Brondsema wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
> Just because we can have a distinction between voting committers and
> non-voting committers doesn't mean we should.  What are the reasons we
> would want a committer that can't vote?  Task-based access is the only one
> I know of.  But I consider that like taking one step into the realm full
> involvement.

Well put. I too would like to reduce distinction.
Either people are committed or are part-time developers.

> Consider me: I became a committer because I wanted to work on forrestbot
> and make some fixes to the windows .bat files.  Those were task-oriented.
> But I have now become involved in many parts of forrest.

My experience is similar. Cocoon was my first opensource foray
then Forrest. At Cocoon i wanted to implement the entity resolver.
I sent clumsy java patches, and was keen on helping with docs.
Two tasks that are very far from serious java/xml app development.
I demonstrated commitment to the project and was invited.
Then got sucked in further, and now look what happened.

> Even if we give someone commit access for the purpose of a specific task,
> we give them access to the whole tree.  This means we're letting them be
> fully involved if they want to.  Even if they choose to work only on one
> feature, they should be a voting committer so that they can vote on issues
> related to that feature, and they should abstain from votes unrelated to
> their work.

That is what i do - just silently abstain from some votes
that have i no hope of understanding. While on others i try
to add constructive comments, to throw ideas into the pot.

> Moreover, if we did have non-voting committers to work on a certain
> feature, we need to define another process for "graduation" to voting
> committership.  I don't like having so many levels of stratification, it
> makes the community feel less open.

Me too. With our draft guidelines i tried to not have
any words like "promotion", reward", "graduation" because
that implies strata and clubs.

-- 
David Crossley


Mime
View raw message