forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: Proposal for Forrest-Cocoon-Lenya commit access
Date Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:42:35 GMT
Tim Williams wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > 
> > Anyway, i just want to ensure that we all, especially
> > our new PMC members, understand the implications.
> This new PMC member doesn't see the value in it as I attempted to
> express in my earlier mail on this topic.  I don't believe in the
> "field of dreams" ("if you build it, they will come") -- "if you give
> access, they will contribute".  Truth is, people contribute because of
> their own personal interest not just because there's an easy
> opportunity.

That is the way that i see it too.

>  I can only imagine that for an existing committer on
> another project, the bar would likely be set pretty low for a
> committership offer anyway -- so asking them to add a JIRA issue and
> and contribute a patch to determine whether they're truly committed to
> forrest or just stumbled across a couple bugs isn't a great burden for
> someone already familiar with the process anyway.

I have a personal example on that. We had a need
in Forrest for another Apache Ant task. It was easy to
develop and test it here, then contribute it back.
If i had such commit access to Ant, i would not have
used it anyway. I would still send a patch, complete
with test case and doc. Let them handle it.

> Opening the doors because we trust folks to know their own limitations
> sounds unnecessary to me.  Open the doors because we trust your
> self-control?   I mean, I suppose there's no harm given that if they
> don't have self control commits could be reverted and svn locked down,
> but what's it buy us?
> I suppose when I came on I read the roles and merit stuff, emails from
> existing PMC members on these sort of topics and came to a certain
> conclusion and respect for it.  Now it seems like we're changing
> "merit - earned by consistent contributions" and "committer==someone
> who is committed to a particular project".

We want to make sure that we don't change any of that,
which is why we are discussing this all before rushing
to a decision.

>  I mean, based on these
> definitions, I don't understand why Lenya for instance, votes me a
> committer on their project.

Thorsten corrected that mis-understanding.

> Between your hypothetical and Nicola's Ant experience, I just don't
> see the value in it -- is it just a "good will" jesture or what? 
> Having said that, I am a new PMC member I'm gladly deferring to you
> more experienced folks to guide us down the right path.  I'm also not
> trying to cause trouble with my comments but hoping to learn.

Your comments are fine. Don't ever doubt that.
In fact you bring wonderful insights. Remember that
post of yours in the "simple committer" thread.
One of the ASF board members was very impressed by
your "PMC continuum" concept. Thanks.


View raw message