forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Williams <>
Subject Re: Proposal for Forrest-Cocoon-Lenya commit access
Date Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:44:21 GMT
On 9/2/05, David Crossley <> wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> > Let's not be driven by fear, but by opportunity... and let's look at
> > history. Our open access to Cocoon and Lenya has never given us issues.
> By the way, Lenya do not currently have access
> to our SVN, only Cocoon.
> > Instead we have gained Antonio and Unico's locationmap. All gain, no
> > pain... where's the problem?
> >
> > If we will have problems, we can still lock down later. Let's remember
> > it's not about opening to the world, but to *Apache* peers.
> No problem yet. However i can forsee a situation
> where there can become a problem. Not being paranoid,
> just trying to look ahead and make sure that we don't
> create a problem.
> Try this hypothetical (mostly so) ...
> Lets say that Apache XXX project takes on a new committer
> who is a loose cannon. I have actually seen this happen
> already. I almost voted -1, but with that project doing
> their committer votes in public, i was not brave enough.
> I regretted that later. I had not seen any merit process
> and i did not have trust. (That is why Forrest PMC votes
> in private.)
> So in this hypothetical, that person now has access to
> Forrest SVN. They come here too and start making changes
> with no idea, nor care, about our desired direction.
> They just want to get the job done, their way.
> Yes, our PMC can always roll back changes and revoke
> access, but that causes community friction. Also with a
> small number of active people on our PMC, that oversight
> becomes difficult.
> 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.  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.

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

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.


View raw message