incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: an experiment
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:47:59 GMT
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 13:57, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
> On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for.
> Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent
> email at members@ that there was much more flexibility possible with
> committer status than with releases -- that the iPMC could indeed make a
> one-time, blanket, decision, that PPMC votes were sufficient for committer
> status. To cite an example to support my position, I'm pretty sure that GSOC
> students get commit privileges without formal PMC votes.
> However, if I am dense, and if the foundation requirements do require a real
> PMC vote for committer  access, then the idea of my first paragraph would
> apply.

For reference, any Subversion PMC member can grant (limited) commit
status to another individual. We believe that if somebody with
long-term involvement in the project (on the PMC) feels that another
can do some good work, then they are entitled to make that happen. The
new committer can *only* commit into a specific area (like a branch,
or a specific directory), so we aren't scared for the project. We can
always revert the commits and/or remove commit rights. The commits get
reviewed, so we don't feel there are issues around submarine code

Getting onto the PMC itself is a full vote, however. And those account
requests *do* have to come from me, as the VP of Subversion (a rule
from root@, tho Joe has said he is relaxing that a bit as long as the
private@ list is cc'd).

But your point is true: committership is a local, PMC decision. They
can apply easy or strict rules. The IPMC could certainly delegate
these decisions to the PPMCs.


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

View raw message