geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Genender" <jgenen...@savoirtech.com>
Subject RE: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:28:45 GMT
Its not fear....

Its fairness to the community...we have a lot of people who have contributed
in one way or another and would like to be a committer, but are not.  I
think there is something to say not only for the contributions, but the
commitment to the project.  IMHO the "commit" of committer also means
commitment.  The last thing we want to do is offer full commitership to a
couple of commercial entities out-of-the-box.  I think that would give the
wrong impressions to the community.

In addition, I think its fair to say that we should get to know the team
players before giving them the keys to the house.

Given that this is an open source project, it should follow the unwritten
rules of acquiring committership.  IMHO, donating code does not guarantee
commitment to the project.

I really don't see an issue with ACLing off an area, be it the sandbox,
sub-project, or incubation, with the aspect of stating that if they show the
commitment, they will be granted karma.  It's the way its mostly been done,
and I see no reason this should change now.

Jeff 

-----Original Message-----
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:46 PM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)

I hardly knew any of you...yet i supported as much as i could even during
the early stages. same thing am doing with beehive/wsrp4j/muse (anything
that as a ws component whether they are destined for ws pmc or not).
remember, this is an open-source project!!!!!!!

what is it that you are afraid of? (that a few technical -1's on code
checkin would not handle?)

-- dims

On 7/12/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >
> >> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry 
> >> +about
> >> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that 
> >> we can place the code in our SVN.)
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers 
> >> +(we
> >> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> >> companies)
> >>
> >
> > -1.  Thats not fair to the community.  I would ACL it...let them 
> > prove themselves individually before being given the keys to the 
> > car.  This is only fair to all the other folks who had to prove 
> > their commitment to community.
> 
> Let me ask a question - how do you define and measure commitment?
> 
> Clearly, we have traditionally used "demonstrated interest in the 
> project" as a yardstick, as well as  "demonstrated contribution to the 
> project"?  That's really what we're concerned about, right?
> 
> I think that people can do this in different ways.  David Jencks 
> throws tons of time at code.  I throw tons of time at less technical, 
> and more at community, administrative and legal issues.
> 
> Would it be sufficient for someone to take software that they created, 
> maybe even built a business on, and not only offered to donate with no 
> strings attached to the project for us to do with as we wish, but also 
> offered an even more precious commodity, interested and dedicated 
> people to work on it, to ask for a place at the table?
> 
> geir
> 
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
> 
> 
> 


--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/



Mime
View raw message