geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul McMahan" <paulmcma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Modified RTC
Date Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:40:00 GMT
My opinion on this matter may be a bit extreme but I still probably
qualify as an upstart whippersnapper so I can happily enjoy that
luxury.  I understand why the project needed to switch over to RTC and
am impressed by how positively the community has responded.  David
Blevins' excellent "patches ready for RTC" automated emails are just
one example of how this team has responded in a positive and
productive way to embrace a difficult change.

That being said I think the goal of switching to RTC was to serve as a
kick-start for more healthy and pervasive communication, and not to
institute a permanent system of checks and balances.  IMHO the
inevitable follow-on discussion of switching to RTC has played out in
productive manner and the necessary synapses are now in place.  So I'm
hoping that if this thread culminates into an official vote that
there's an option for switching back to "classic" Apache CTR without
any additional checks and balances.  Maybe that's closest to what
Kevan proposes in option 1 below(?)

Best wishes,
Paul

On 9/6/06, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt.
> Agreed that it's time to push this issue to a conclusion.
>
> There seemed to be two schools of thought in the "Returning to Commit-
> Then-Review" thread:
>
> 1) CTR with guidelines for documenting new function to the community,
> and
> 2) RTC with lazy consensus.
>
> The proposal you describe below is a third option (RTC with relaxed
> review and PMC vote requirements). Which is fine, but I think it's a
> new/different  proposal. I assume this was your intention.
>
> I propose we summarize these 3 options and put them to a vote. If we
> feel that is fragmenting the vote, then we vote on CTR vs. RTC, then
> refine the specific process. Comments?
>
> --kevan
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2006, at 1:50 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > *** Begin Proposal ***
> >
> > Geronimo Development Process
> >
> > Geronimo follows a model similar to Review Then Commit (RTC).
> > Patches for new function are provided by developers for review and
> > comment by their peers.  Feedback is conducted through JIRA
> > comments. The goal of this interaction is to solicit suggestions
> > from the community and incorporate their feedback as appropriate.
> > In order for a patch to be accepted it requires the following:
> >
> > * Needs to be reviewed by committers on the project.  Others may
> > comment but their comments are not binding.  The review may, but
> > does not have to, include application and testing.  The goal of the
> > review is to understand the technical attributes of the change as
> > well as the assess other impacts to the project as a whole.
> >
> > * 3 +1 votes from committers on the project (1 of these committers
> > needs to be a member of the PMC) with no outstanding -1 votes.
> >
> > * Any -1 votes need to be accompanied by a reason and a mutually
> > agreed upon solution to the issue raised.
> >
> > * If the issues can't be resolved then the PMC can be called upon
> > to settle the dispute and make a recommendation.
> >
> > * Issues are generally of a technical nature.  However, issues may
> > include other items like usability, project cohesiveness or other
> > issues that impact the project as a whole.
> >
> > The goal of these guidelines is to facilitate timely communication
> > as well as the fostering of ideas and collaboration as well as
> > innovation.
> >
> > *** End Proposal ***
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message