Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.184.234 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer;
        b=HeRpfRIdetHxS9LDqpBlmXC2e3K977IDBlQGuyqfgqNlDuO7zFQ2rF6uhFvKzvUCZnZya9XIS4/u+otk+TAM3nwy8RISLE0R4BYU/VLZCL6wDhD1d5Hy9iL8vnPGunBxYz9mtf5I+uog4UWCxoqSXijJJ/BV0fhC9sEiftaGsxY=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750)
In-Reply-To: <44941004.8070503@Golux.Com>
References: <B0E977E8-3FE0-42F7-A39D-B8DAFE79DB67@gmail.com>
 <44941004.8070503@Golux.Com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <B19D3410-D218-4013-AB49-8249F17D2C51@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Request change to RTC Process
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:30:28 -0400
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Correct.
>
>> 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.
>
> Noted.
>
>> 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.
>
> IMHO, the problem lies with Geronimo, not with the interpretation.
>
>> (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"
>
> No, that is inadequate.  RTC is not something to 'get around;'
> it's a fundamental way of progressing.  If something fails to
> garner three +1 votes, it means that there aren't three people
> who care enough about it for it to go into the code.  It's up
> to the person/people behind the item to drum up support for
> it.  It doesn't go in until three people have verified that
> it works acceptably.
>
> If that means things languish for weeks or months, then
> that's what it means.

Ken, I don't understand. How does my proposal 'get around' RTC? I  
haven't changed the requirement for three +1 votes. I'm trying to  
clarify what a +1 vote means. I think my interpretation is doing more  
to encourage communication within the community. I'd like to see some  
additional documentation requirements and guidelines be added to the  
RTC process to further encourage community communication. I assume  
that these changes would be determined by community vote? Or are all  
aspects of RTC under your jurisdiction?

BTW, I'm not the only one who disagrees with your 'patched and  
tested' interpretation. On May 24, 2006 3:53:23 PM EDT, Greg Stein  
commented in the original "Change to commit model for Apache  
Geronimo" thread:

> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are  
> many
> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from  
> eyeballing
> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't  
> always need
> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to
> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-)

--kevan