harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [discussion] Committer Addition Process
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:37:24 GMT

On Sep 20, 2005, at 10:16 AM, acoliver@apache.org wrote:

>> So I'd like to keep it really simple :
>> 1) Anyone with a contribution that would belong in SVN can be   
>> considered for commit status by the PMC (PPMC while in  
>> incubation).   This contribution can be anything - new code, a  
>> patch to existing  code, documentation, a change to the website,  
>> testing code or other  resources, etc. (Hopefully this gets people  
>> interested in harvesting  good docs from the WIKI, as that's worth  
>> commit status IMO)
> I'm not sure how this seeds initial committers though.  Start with  
> this, any existing Apache committer or member who has turned in his  
> ACQ and requests commit access.  This will at least get an initial  
> set of committers to the repository.  Its also the "likely suspects".

We have an initial committer list that was part of the proposal, just  
like every other incubator proposal.

You are a committer and a member.  Can't you find a patch for David's  
code? ;)

Seriously, I'm not really against this, but I don't see why we'd have  
to do this because we are keeping the bar very low for everyone.  If  
you had commit access right now, what would you do? Could you do that  
same thing and post it as a JIRA contribution, and let us turn the  
crank? :)

>> 2) If offered commit status by the PMC and accepted by the   
>> individual, we will get an ACQ from the individual along with an  
>> ICLA  if not already on file with the ASF secretary.  I'd ask  
>> that  individuals wait to do an ACQ until offered, as the ACQ will  
>> be  evolving over time as we learn, and I'd like to ask that a  
>> new  committer have the current version on file as of the date of  
>> them  being added as a commmitter.
> This will probably be less of a problem when there is code.

It should have nothing to do with code.  It's just that we're  
evolving the ACQ...

>> 3) The individual would be given free reign in the area to which  
>> they  contributed, and trusted to engage with the relevant part of  
>> the  community for other areas of our codebase/resourcebase.
> And if they request access to another area provided they have no  
> issues they should be given so forthwidth.  Start one UNIFIED  
> project not 12.

I think you misunderstand.  There is only one kind of committer.

A new committer that has filled in the ACQ will have access to the  
full repository in reality (modulo places the ACQ says he/she can't  
go), with a simple understanding of trust (some would call a  
"gentleman's agreement", but I hate that term...) to work in the area  
that they got commit for.  ("Bob, you did great work on the docs.   
We're offering you commit.  Keep up the great work on the docs, and  
if you want to work elsewhere, be sure to work with other community  
members first so you can get in synch with what they are doing")

This has nothing to do w/ a segmented ACL list for the SVN.  I want  
to avoid balkanization - except for places where we have to prohibit  
people based on their ACQ.  We want to make sure that our controls  
over IP are defensible.

>> Comments?  If people agree to this, I'd like to add this to our   
>> website as part of the project policy.
> If this opens the repository to code then I think its great.  If  
> not, then I think it sucks.


> -Andy
>> geir

Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message