incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Tim Kim as committer
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:27:15 GMT
On 23 March 2012 17:09, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> I'm confused as to why we have to have *any* barriers to entry, especially
> if the community votes on committership anyways.

Don't take my comments to indicate that their should be barriers, as I
said I'm a fan of low barriers.

> I would be a fan of a "if x people vote +1, and no one voted -1, let the
> person in" mentality.

That's the recommended practice for all ASF projects. Nothing I said
suggests I'm saying this should be otherwise does it?

What I asked for is for someone on this project to document what is
expected of a contributor who is a candidate for committership. I did
not say such a document should make it hard. Therefore I'm a little
confused by your question below. Please restate if I'm missing your
point.

Ross

>
> What downsides does this approach pose?
>
> On 3/23/12 9:55 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
>>Thank Jukka, I've been avoiding casting my mentor vote as I was
>>unclear about the policies being adopted here. They felt uneven to me
>>but I thought it was perhaps because I've not being paying enough
>>attention, or perhaps it was because of this (to me) unfamiliar way of
>>working with github forks.
>>
>>It's kind of strange because I'm a fan of very low barriers to entry
>>for projects. Usually as a mentor I find myself having to prompt
>>podlings to bring in new people. Here I find the opposite.
>>
>>I'd really appreciate it if the project team could put together some
>>guidelines against which new committers will be evaluated. What is is
>>that they are looking for?
>>
>>I'd also really appreciate it if VOTE threads contained some evidence
>>of contributions in the form of appropriate likes to commits, mail
>>traffic, documentation edits, etc. This both helps reviewers of the
>>vote and helps demonstrate to others how easy it is to gain an input
>>here (which is often a motivating factor)
>>
>>Ross
>>
>>On 23 March 2012 16:37, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>>>> Lets try this again! Tim has been working w/ the BlackBerry platform
>>>> for some time and taken a lead on the coho release tool.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> This is a hard call if you look at just the community interactions
>>> recorded on apache.org [1]. There's a lot of people with similar
>>> levels of participation around here, so singling Tim out as someone to
>>> be given commit access raises all sorts of questions about fairness
>>> and equal access.
>>>
>>> That said, I see his work on the coho tool on GitHub and since coho
>>> really should be an integral part of Cordova, it makes sense to grant
>>> Tim committership along with bringing coho to apache.org. Thus my +1.
>>>
>>> As for BlackBerry, I don't see related commits or issues from Tim on
>>> either apache.org or GitHub. Perhaps I'm just not looking at the right
>>> place.
>>>
>>> PS. I hate to question someone's commitment on a public list, which is
>>> why votes like this one should IMHO be held on private@.
>>>
>>> [1] http://callback.markmail.org/search/from:kim
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Jukka Zitting
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>



-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Mime
View raw message