geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: committer process
Date Fri, 12 Sep 2003 20:03:46 GMT

On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 12:40  PM, Ryan Ackley wrote:

> IMO excluding the committers and developers from discussions and votes 
> go
> against the principles of a meritocracy.

I totally agree.

> The people who are doing all the
> work should have final say...period...end of story.

Again, I completely agree with you.

> Leaders should rise from
> the pack based on their actions not on their committee memberships.

Right.

All the serious contributors will become committers.

All the serious committers and all of the leaders will become PMC 
members.

> When all
> important decisions are being made behind closed doors how can 
> committers
> who may not be on the PMC develop into leaders?

When all serious contributors are part of the PMC, they will not think
anything is happening behind closed doors.

On all the PMCs I'm on, all important technical decisions happen on the
development list. Almost all of the topics on the PMC list are 
sensitive. Also,
all the PMC lists I'm on are very low traffic.

> I have not heard one compelling argument for keeping committer votes
> restricted to the PMC.

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.

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).

-aaron


Mime
View raw message