incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject "Project leads", "earning merit", Commit-then-review
Date Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:00:27 GMT
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

Cheers,
Christian








--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de

Mime
View raw message