incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian LeRoux...@brian.io>
Subject Re: Contributions policy for those with no ICLA
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:09:24 GMT
>> Certain I'm opening a can of worms here but I really do feel the 'vote
>> a committer in' policy puts an unnecessary barrier to community,
>> contribution and adoption.
>
> Sounds like you're making too big a deal about the vote here.

Not my intent. Its not a big deal. (At all.) I think this is the root
cause of the concern identified by Ross in how he perceives how we
work (or worked, rather, in the past).


> It's basically just about making sure that everyone agrees about the
> "decent contribution" part, so except for the few extra days of delay
> in letting the vote run its course is pretty much the only extra
> overhead I see here (yes, the Incubator adds a bit of extra
> complexity, but that's temporary). Is the vote perceived as a bigger
> barrier than that?

I guess this is the difference between estimating complexity vs time.
=) There is no faster code than no code at all. I'm not proposing its
more complex or more expensive by any order of magnitude but rather
that it introduces a barrier that did not previously exist.

I'm not advocating change or really care enough to go to some battle
over this. Just an observation.


> If not a vote, what (or who) would decide who gets commit access?

Upon review of a few pull requests that would be successfully merged a
committer (usually the guy doing said merge) would add the new person
as a committer to save themselves the trouble in the future. Its is a
different philosophy; we tend to believe that folks are here to the
right thing first. This isn't a trivial assumption; I believe it
creates a community of mutual trust, respect, and happens to also save
on the costs of policing and associated bureaucracy.

Mime
View raw message