forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Brondsema <>
Subject Re: [DRAFT] Forrest Project Guidelines
Date Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:12:08 GMT
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

> Clay Leeds wrote:
> > (from the perspective of being just a 'user'--I think--at this point :-))
> >
> > On Jun 30, 2004, at 5:22 AM, David Crossley wrote:
> >
> >>> David Crossley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >>>> ... but now that I have seen it I don't read in it
> >>>> the fact that simple committers cannot vote
> >>>> (as instead I would prefer).
> ...
> > 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

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.

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.

Dave Brondsema : : personal : programming : student org

View raw message