forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Community health
Date Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:54:19 GMT
Gav.... wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Crossley" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Community health
>> David Crossley wrote:
>>> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>> > David Crossley escribi??:
>>> > > Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> > > > However, there are more general community issues here as well,

>>> and > > > I
>>> > > > would like to look at them. Here are three community 
>>> observations > > > (and
>>> > > > as far as I am concerned the really important part of this):
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1) Some people seem to feel that the normal ASF meritocracy is
>>> > > > sufficient credit within Forrest. Why should Forrest be 
>>> different > > > from
>>> > > > other ASF projects? Do we need to do something different?
>>> >
>>> > Hmm, what is your definition of normal?
>>> See the end of my previous email in this thread.
>>> In my copius spare time i plan to add a section
>>> to our project guidelines to define exactly
>>> how we currently acknowledge contributions.
>>> Then we can discuss in a calm manner whether
>>> any of that needs changing. Or hopefully each
>>> one of us can fine-tune and edit that in
>>> the normal opensource fashion.
>> Okay i have made an attempt to capture how we
>> currently do this. Not yet published to the site,
>> so look at your local copy.
>> cd site-author
>> svn up
>> forrest run
>> http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#way
>> http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#contribution
>> "Lazy approval" applies.
> That looks pretty good to me and something I am happy
> to go with as is.


> Of the 12 Active Committers, probably about 7 of those are what I call 
> at the moment Currently Active Commiters, of those 7 I dont remember how 
> many are committing other contributors patches.
> Is this enough do you think, considering the current speed of 
> development of 0.8 and the need to support and patch 0.7 ?

This is not enough. All committers need to put time into maintaining the 
project as a whole. It is not just about committing code patches, but 
updating docs, publishing the website, user support etc.

However, the reality is this is a volunteer effort and we all do what we 
can. The problem with saying "out loud" that *we*, the community, need 
to do more, is that individuals who do not currently have the time may 
feel that the words are targetted at them

> Maybe, to reduce pressure of the busiest committers and to let them get 
> on with their own coding, maybe there should be an initial level of 
> Committer that is not a PMC member until such time as they would 
> normally be voted in as is current a Committer/PMC Member. This level of 
> Committer only will allow for more contributors to help by applying 
> other peoples patches and reduce the workload for others currently doing 
> the job.

This has been discussed many times (see archives). The summary is that 
it is not seen as a good idea. The only reason for the PMC is to have a 
private place to discuss issues that cannot be discussed in public, for 
example, security issues. PMC membership does not, generally, requrie 
any more commitment than being a committer. Therefore, having a second 
level of committership will not really change the situation. Either 
someone has the time/inclination to apply patches or they do not - not 
being in the PMC will not change that.


> Ah well, something to think about anyway. And yes, I have seen previous 
> discussions about this in the past and remember them well. Just a timely 
> reminder :)

If there is any reason to change past decisions we need to hear them. 
Otherwise we are ust wasting time going over old gound. In other words, 
is there anything in the past discussions that you feel is no longer 
appropriate to this decision?

> Second point (hmm, so all the above is just one point!) , how about 
> their being hyperlinks to Contributors/Committers sites within the 
> changes document. Seeing a load of [TS] [RDG] [DC] etc all over the 
> place is hardly informing to the outsider.

I am of the opinon that who applies what change is irrelevant. However, 
I have no objection to such links if others want them.


View raw message