geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Modified RTC
Date Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:29:18 GMT
I agree with Kevan.

Thanks,
     Aaron

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