From dev-return-10982-apmail-forrest-dev-archive=forrest.apache.org@forrest.apache.org Thu Jul 01 14:24:02 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 40983 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2004 14:24:02 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 2004 14:24:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 11044 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2004 14:24:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 10942 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2004 14:24:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 10880 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jul 2004 14:24:00 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [65.104.121.53] (HELO mail.medata.com) (65.104.121.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:23:58 -0700 Received: from [172.24.2.66] ([172.24.2.66]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.medata.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i61ENkKE008642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:23:47 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: References: <1086761689.31520.41527.camel@ighp> <1086772558.31520.42264.camel@ighp> <1086787587.31519.43797.camel@ighp> <1087619052.1555.68.camel@ighp> <1088303182.18566.10185.camel@ighp> <1088598159.18566.46238.camel@ighp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <41185570-CB6A-11D8-85CD-00039385397E@medata.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Image-Url: http://homepage.mac.com/webmaestro/.cv/thumbs/me.thumbnail From: Clay Leeds Subject: Re: [DRAFT] Forrest Project Guidelines Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:23:42 -0700 To: dev@forrest.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.73, clamav-milter version 0.73a on mail.medata.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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] get http://xml.apache.org/fop/ properly forrest-ed to output Whole Site PDF ;-)). 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