httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From (Ralf S. Engelschall)
Subject Re: "official"
Date Sat, 01 Feb 1997 09:48:32 GMT

In article <> you wrote:
> Marc Slemko wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Rob Hartill wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 2. Those who can vote.
> > > 
> > > This is open to anyone. There are voting guidlines somewhere on
> > > describing the voting procedure. Anyone can vote if they follow those
> > > guidelines.
> > 
> > <ahem>  If you follow those guidelines, there has not been a vote
> > conducted since I have been here and none of the source changes made
> > should have happened.
> > 

> Well, not really... I've seen numerous "+1"s in postings...
> Certainly nothing like the old days before we went with CVS, but
> there's still some who vote

Or in other words: There are still guidelines but practice shows that no one
still really follows them and that there is no one who really takes care that
the guidelines are followed. Although this have not to be actually bad, is is
some sort of useless thing. Then there should be no guidelines at all and
everyone should hack as he wants. Hmmm... I would really prefer the guidelines
are updated, new power arrives and the people follow these guidelines. And one
thing is really important: There should be _always_ one dedicated developer
who does manage the release cicle, as Marc currently does while taking care
the list of needed bugfixes, etc. This is really essential! Else no one seems
there is something to do for himself and just listens to the others.

I discuss this point only for one reason: I think that the current working
practice of the Apache Group is not very efficient. Or at least not very
efficient to produce great development steps for the Apache webserver (keep in
mind that we want a big developent for 2.0!). Again I have to say that a
developer only will do a lot of work if either he has plenty of time (who
really has this?) _OR_ loves the job and receives credit for his work.  Only
then a developer does hard work. If there is no motivation, no great group
coherence, etc. this will not push the people to do great work...

Some constructive idea:

1. Make a decision about who is a so-called group core member and
   who is just a contributor of the group. Write it down. This is really
   important for an efficient voting.

2. Update voting guidelines. There should be group core members
   who can vote "+1", "0" and "-1" with the special meaning of:

   "+1" for ok, reviewed this stuff and thing is is really ok.
   "0"  for no idea if bad or good, others should decide
   "-1" as a strict veto! In other words: If a group core members voted 
        "-1" the others should really wake up and start discussion! 

   All other group contributors can also vote "+1", "0" and "-1" for stuff
   they seem to be authorative or have interest in. But here the semantics are

    "+1" means fine for the core members, but not sufficient for a commit
    "0"  means no idea at all for the core members and is actually useless
    "-1" means attention for the core members but should not veto things.

   In other words, the contributors can vote to give the core members _HINTS_
   but not to force anything. Instead the voting of core members is important
   and can lead to stop something in case of a veto.

3. Give all core members an account on,
   access to CVS and the priviledge to vote as a core member.

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message