httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <>
Subject Re: What's next for 2.2 and 2.3/trunk?
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:35:26 GMT
On 04 Jun 2010, at 2:51 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:

> +1 for the continued, and perhaps more widespread, voluntary  
> soliciting of approval in advance for changes which add new modules  
> or other significant new function, or make other widespread changes,  
> or change prerequisites in a meaningful way, or have been discussed  
> in the past without resolution (or with outright rejection), etc.,  
> etc.  (We don't need an explicit laundry list, or any additional  
> policy, to codify the practical matter that multiple developers need  
> to be ready and willing to cope with such changes when they reach  
> the user base).
> This has been done countless times by numerous people in this  
> successful decade, in spite of, and even for the continued viability  
> of, the C-T-R policy.

This creates an artificial "two tier" hierarchy of committers, those  
who regularly "approve" changes, and those who don't.

A new person arriving here is certainly not going to feel confident  
enough to step in and "approve" a change. What they'll see is a small  
group of people "approving" changes made by a larger group of people,  
and they'll naturally fall into the second "tier".

The ASF is a meritocracy, and someone attains committership by proving  
their merit to the point where they are invited to become committers:

Where this has started to become a problem is when committers in the  
"first tier" feel their "seniority" is enough basis for an objection  
to a code contribution. All committers are equal, and no matter how  
long a committer has been around, they have to provide a justification  
for their objection to a piece of code just as thoroughly thought out  
as the original committer is expected to be thorough with their  
original contribution.


View raw message