Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 36027 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2005 02:01:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jul 2005 02:01:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 58669 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jul 2005 02:01:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 58641 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jul 2005 02:01:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 58628 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jul 2005 02:01:27 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:01:26 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [128.241.244.71] (HELO chi.mobile-health-diary.com) (128.241.244.71) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:01:24 -0700 Received: (qmail 22276 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2005 02:01:23 -0000 Received: from ool-43560634.dyn.optonline.net (HELO ?10.0.1.18?) (geir@67.86.6.52) by b014.internal.mobile-health-diary.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2005 02:01:23 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) In-Reply-To: <42D4611D.1000206@toolazydogs.com> References: <3FD9DE78-7281-4086-8055-F584CCAD9044@apache.org> <42D33169.9080503@toolazydogs.com> <42D4611D.1000206@toolazydogs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <76288319-22FA-4B9A-A8EF-C95EB13A2ADF@apache.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." Subject: Re: Donations & Policies Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:01:34 -0400 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:32 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 7/12/2005 8:43 AM: > > >> >> On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> >> >>> >>> All code donations go into >>> >>> /geronimo/incubator/donationx/* >>> >>> The contributors would get restricted committer access to their >>> project; granting committer access gives us better visibility >>> how well the person works in a community setting. They and, >>> hopefully Geronimo committers, would whip it into shape. The >>> community would provide guidance and, hopefully, vote it into >>> Geronimo once its ready and all the appropriate paper work was >>> obtained. >>> The "probationary" committers would, hopefully, get voted into >>> Geronimo, regardless of their projects status. I have never >>> heard of a motivated developer not getting committer access. >>> >>> >> >> I'd like to propose a slight modification. That we give them >> committer access w/o a formal, restricted ACL, but a clear >> understanding that there's a place where they are bring brought in >> to work, and if they wish to participate elsewhere, they do so >> via standard engagement of working with others, learning about >> the area, proposing changes on dev@ etc, until they and others >> are comfortable, etc. >> >> Any change can be vetoed, and any change can be rolled back. I >> think we should assume a level of trust, and if broken, commit >> priv can be revoked. >> >> Just consider for a little while. I believe that this won't be a >> popular suggestion, but the risk is small, and the upside great, >> it keeps things simple, and I believe leads to a more unified, >> richer community. :) >> > > > I don't think that the extended privs would necessarily lead to "a > more unified, richer community" but would, instead, increase the > burden on those Geronimo committers charged with monitoring the > contribution under probation. Let me elaborate - the burden is the same. We are responsible for the entire codebase. Whether or not the new committers have an ACL that lets the write to modules/kernel doesn't remove our responsibility for the new code that was brought in. I can picture a process where there is no probation. We'd be saying that the contribution of the code is, to the PMC, reasonable demonstration of commitment (this is a judgement we'd have to make each and every time for every offered contribution), and that we are willing to trust that they'll work on that contribution in a "good way" with us. For the other parts of the Geronimo codebase, we ask that they never just go jumping into anything, but work with the other committers to be sure that they are working in a way compatible with the existing community. Anyone who violates that trust that we offered will have committer privs revoked. Anyone who respects the trust offered will naturally blend into the rest of the committer community. Any bad code change can be vetoed (and I think that we must become more comfortable with vetoing and more comfortable as accepting it in a non-personal, technical manner...) I think that this is the cleanest, simplest and most elegant way. OTOH, I do recognize that there's a large element of trust as well as a real lack of exposure and experience with the new people we'd be bringing in. OTOOH, there are no guarantees in life :) geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 geirm@apache.org