incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@odoko.co.uk>
Subject Re: "Project leads", "earning merit", Commit-then-review
Date Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:02:50 GMT


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013, at 03:00 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> from time to time I see in several projects the term "lead developer"
> coming up. Sometimes incubating projects are confused also when to
> grant committership.
> 
> On the "lead developer": the ASF is a do-cracy, as we sometimes say.
> The guy who "does things" is actually leading it. We do not have a
> hierarchy, like a senior programmer who tells juniors what to do. The
> whole project is "leading" the project. There are no real managers or
> something like that. The term "lead" does let "non-leads" wait before
> they are taking action. But in fact, everybody reading this list is
> invited to take initiative and do things. Even non-committers can
> "lead" something.
> 
> When a non-committer has show commitment to a project, he gets
> invited. Projects have different bars for inviting people. Personally
> I always prefer to set a pretty low bar for earning committership.
> Becoming a PMC member is a different thing. The bar should be higher.
> For example, I think about a candidate if he is around for lets say 3
> months and contributes. Contributions can be answering user questions,
> writing docs, cleaning up Jira, writing code and so on. Translators,
> Community people, they all can become committer.
> After three months it is clear if the person wants to stay around or not.
> 
> The PMC should then open a [DISCUSS] thread on private and speaking
> about the candidate. He should fit to the team. Toxic people can be
> dangerous.
> 
> You are project are free to choose when it is time to invite a person.
> 
> In the current situation as Incubator podling I would even have a
> lesser bar. In the situation of Wave - complex technology driven by
> less people with less time - the bar should be very low. But this is
> just my opinion. If you agree, work through the mailinglists and
> nominate people.
> 
> In general, it needs to be easy to contribute to Wave right now.
> Complex review processes might stop people. I cite Upayavira in the
> hope this thread is more visible:
> 
> "= review then commit =
> Mature communities usually follow this, when there's substantial risk in
> making chances. Wave is way to young for this, IMO.
> 
> = commit then review =
> This is what I'm used to. Make a commit, and have other developers watch
> the commit list. They can object on the dev list if they see something
> they don't like, but the basic assumption is that, if you have commit
> rights, we trust you."
> 
> I am also a fan of ctr. I agree that Wave is ways to young for rtc.
> Instead, code base must move on as quickly as possible.
> 
> Please see this e-mail as suggestion, and not binding.
> 
> I want to make sure:
> 
> - non-committers know they are invited to perform actions
> - committers know its ok to early invite new people to the project
> (don't be shy)
> - there is the option to commit-then-review - no need for a review
> board in early stages, if you ask me

No need for reviewboard because that's what the commit mails are for. If
you are a committer, make sure you are receiving them and do review
them.

Upayavira 

Mime
View raw message