Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of brian.leroux@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: brian.leroux@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOFYJNZmtD=cvmE+PYHg5e_5eoP6205qoe4j3ou1gcLpAJZweA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKQbXgA_0O_s2wfrm=LbBF2JbtG_Lazr+=GUhuMz6ff7tbedtg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOFYJNbp1i9PdYoCkkWPqOHo9bxwu3+9EhJYabfLoEzRBCXPUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAoQH0NYUVn8GYOYnmwdu4YA6kELipDSsF_NTmvg=v51BMe5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKQbXgAdZXy-2=HRCZJd-+bXDe055no+QwtJJgL9Wy1=heOuSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE6O_-YPfyeh0uapv2hNSLZo5h7OpJz50T8eCAdmL=h5JGS6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADVgkyNNjQFLVJ1ruHmuBv_c=bZE1Mxi0PsZSgvaCASDscGLkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOFYJNZmtD=cvmE+PYHg5e_5eoP6205qoe4j3ou1gcLpAJZweA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:09:24 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CADVgkyPmaKTFPpE-FwX2uySZAfDaYk-1Xg+apxOOPR=E6DEnjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Contributions policy for those with no ICLA
From: Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>> 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.