incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Subject Re: piling on
Date Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:17:15 GMT
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Roy T. Fielding <> wrote:
>> I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
>> to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
>> the person(s) making the proposal.  Being a committer in the  
>> incubator
>> is giving a person the right to veto code changes based on whatever
>> technical reason they deem significant.  We should not hand out that
>> right like candy to anyone who happens to edit a wiki page.
> I agree. But I also think that making it very easy for existing Apache
> Committers to join an project is valuable.

It is very easy -- ask the proposer.

> 1) Some incubator proposals include only the existing core development
> team on a project. However, some other incubator proposals include
> many "new" proposed committers, some of whom have never submitted code
> to the project. I don't have anything against this, but I think it is
> an important point that the proposed committers are not necessarily
> existing coders on that project.

Sure, and that is up to the proposer.  If the proposal does not gain
sufficient support from Apache because of that fact, that's life.
Nevertheless, it is wrong for us to force a new podling to accept
arbitrary committers just because they happen to have been proposed
as an incubator podling.

> 2) Apache Committers, from whatever different project, have at some
> point proved their worth in some way. In general I would expect them
> to be a welcome addition to an incubator project. If nothing else they
> have some idea of the Apache model and approach.

Sorry, not a chance in hell.  Each project at Apache has its own sense
of what makes for a good contributor.  Some of them hand out commit
access to anyone with a vague idea of contributing.  Some of those
"committers" have proven to have no clue whatsoever when it comes to
handling Apache-style decision making.

I personally believe that it is good for Apache to have multiple
competing projects trying to address the same technology space,
particularly when their strategies appeal to different sets of users.
Among other things, it allows communities to fork *within* Apache
when a fundamental design choice cannot reach consensus, or when
the burdens of backwards compatibility impede significant progress.

> So I fully agree it shouldn't be a matter of "piling on" or just
> editing the wiki page. On the other hand, sending a note to the
> mailing list, *as well* as editing the wiki page is not a crime. The
> wiki page can always been edited back again (and in fact I've had that
> happen to me when I've offered to mentor). The first few time I
> volunteered on an Incubator project, no-one bothered to add me to the
> wiki, simply through inaction. So I favour the active approach.

I do not.  Each community needs to construct itself and nobody here,
including me, has the right to declare themselves part of a new
community without being invited first.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message