geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul McMahan" <paulmcma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Request change to RTC Process
Date Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:09:14 GMT
+1

On 6/3/06, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by
> Geronimo (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's
> interpretation of the RTC process).
>
> In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated
> that a +1 to an RTC request means "I have applied this patch and
> tested it and found it good". Although a relaxation of this
> interpretation has been suggested (or mentioned), to my knowledge
> nothing has actually changed.
>
> In some areas of Geronimo (e.g. devtools), this is a cumbersome and
> difficult task for most committers. The fact that there are not more
> committers interested in these areas of Geronimo is an acknowledged
> issue. However, it's unlikely that current Geronimo committers want
> to be intimately familiar with some of these Geronimo components --
> we've all had our chance to get involved, so far, but have chosen not
> to.
>
> That's a specific problem with the current process. However, I think
> there's a general problem with this interpretation for all areas of
> Geronimo. IMO, this interpretation is not really helping to address
> the fundamental problems/concerns which have prompted the move to
> RTC. IMO, these concerns are that 1) some enhancements are not being
> properly communicated with the Geronimo community, 2) too many
> discussions/debates are occurring on private channels, and 3) some
> people are being intimidated to remain silent on some public
> discussions.
>
> I'd like to see some specific RTC guidelines created for Geronimo.
> I'm sure other projects must have already crafted similar guidelines.
> So, I'd like to take a look at those, before spending too much time
> on creating guidelines from scratch (I'd also like to shove 1.1. out
> the door...)
>
> In the meantime, I propose the following interpretation of a +1 vote
> to an RTC request:
>
> "I have reviewed (and possibly tested) this patch and found it good.
> I understand the capability which the patch is adding and support the
> direction in which it is taking the Geronimo project"
>
> Comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome...
>
> --kevan
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message