forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clay Leeds <cle...@medata.com>
Subject Re: [DRAFT] Forrest Project Guidelines
Date Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:23:42 GMT
On Jul 1, 2004, at 5:12 AM, Dave Brondsema wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> Clay Leeds wrote:
>>> I concur with Nicola Ken Barozzi. A non-voting committer doesn't make
>>> sense to me. To me it's not unlike having a soldier in the military 
>>> with
>>> a 'license' to kill, but who can't legally drink (in U.S.A. you can 
>>> join
>>> the military at 18, but you can't legally drink until you are 21).
>>
>> In fact I meant the opposite, but I've not been clear, sorry.
>>
>> The fact is that having commit access does not mean that you can
>> necessarily vote. Having commit access is not a license to kill, as we
>> can easily revert changes. It's just like getting into the camp, and 
>> be
>> able to work there, but without taking long-term decisions.
>>
>> Note that usual decisions should take place without the tedious 
>> process
>> of formal votes if possible.
>
> 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.

+1

> 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.
>
> 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.

In my case, I was recently voted to have COMMITTER status, even though 
I'm not a java developer (I've got other responsibilities[1] <cough>get 
http://xml.apache.org/fop/ properly forrest-ed to output Whole Site 
PDF</cough> ;-)). The fact that I've got VOTE'ing responsibilities--in 
my mind--gives me the feeling that I've got more ownership of the 
project. All this does, is give me the feeling that I want to 'care' 
even more for FOP than I already did. I suspect similar feelings by 
other VOTE'ing members.

> 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.

Defining how to 'graduate' sounds like a reasonable solution if forrest 
decides to have non-voting committers.

Another possibility, is that the PMC have either some sort of special 
voting powers (+2? only PMC can VETO? extra helping of fruit cup?)

Which brings to mind what I *think* is desired in the non-voting 
committer: a way of getting procedural issues resolved without having 
to 'bother' the entire community. This is what I thought the PMC was 
for.

If I'm off-base, perhaps the classifications of community members needs 
to be spelled out once again, but using better descriptions.

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

Respectfully,

Web Maestro Clay

[1]
http://xml.apache.org/fop/team.html#cl


Mime
View raw message