geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Modified RTC
Date Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:57:03 GMT
I think Kevan was going to summarize the proposals and I believe that was one of them :)

Paul McMahan wrote:
> 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