geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Bartel <j...@mortbay.com>
Subject Re: Request change to RTC Process
Date Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:35:35 GMT
+1 to the suggested meaning of +1 votes
+1 to the suggestion of *all* committers voting


regards
Jan

Kevan Miller 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