geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <>
Subject Re: Request change to RTC Process
Date Wed, 07 Jun 2006 04:20:29 GMT

See inline ..

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...)
It also isn't clear whether the required 3 positive votes for the 
current RTC process are only binding if they are from the PMC.  I think 
that would create a bottleneck considering the current size of the PMC.

In it says "Only votes by 
PMC members are considered binding on code-modification issues", but I 
think we should develop our own guidelines that formalizes who can vote 
on code changes.  For example, has 
their own policy on voting.

> 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

View raw message