geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Ackley" <sack...@cfl.rr.com>
Subject Re: committer process
Date Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:21:07 GMT
> It squelches negative feedback. It's very difficult to discuss reasons
> why someone should _not_ be given commit rights when that person is
> in the conversation.

Negative feedback is rare on committer votes. If there is negative feedback,
why not let the person hear it. I think technical criticism is a good thing.
What I worry about on secret votes is that now you can have politics
involved.

> It disconnects the ASF's legal responsibility for oversight from the
> management of the project's members (committers). Each PMC has a chair,
> and that chairperson is an officer of the ASF. When the PMC votes on
> something, it is that chairperson who officially approves that motion
> (the PMC itself doesn't technically have that power alone).

I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying
its a procedural issue? For any decision to be legal, it has to blessed by
the chairperson?

I'm not against PMCs. I am against PMCs micromanaging every decision. As far
as the management of the members, I haven't really seen a lot of that. There
is a difference between management and leadership. It is difficult to manage
volunteers, it is much easier to lead them.

Ryan


Mime
View raw message