tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pier Fumagalli <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Committer access and responsibilities...
Date Sat, 25 May 2002 02:20:13 GMT
Henri Yandell <> wrote:
> +1.
> Another example if I could. The job role of 'Java admin' is growing more
> and more at companies. Developers shouldn't be adminning things, but would
> you have your unix or oracle admin be the admin of the Java side with zero
> Java knowledge?
> Jakarta houses the 'Java' community at Apache but there's no way for a
> Java admin to be a part of that community. Helping other admins, writing
> documentation, being a consumer at the coders. The only way it can happen
> is if they become a coder, and that's contrary to the concept of a Java
> admin.

That's where my career is going to lately, I didn't think about that in the
first place. I'm going to loose my "committer" status soon now that you make
me think about it! :) :) :)

> I think Pier's suggestion will help to grow the 'ownership' of the
> projects and the apache way of thinking to a larger audience.


> Some possible negatives:
> With more non-codery people around, will the 'noise' level in mail lists
> be too high for coders to want to pay attention?
> [It already is getting that way I find. I delete entire threads if the
> first couple of mails are not of interest to me. It has to be retitled as
> with this email to make me realise there was more going on than the
> original mails. ]

That might as well happen, although I don't feel that there will be many in
one of the two categories without being a "committer". Probably a some more
in the "contributor" side of things (because of corporate involvement and
stuff), but not the other way around... But I believe that we shouldn't give
up this option...

> By growing a large community of non-coders, the coders could have less say
> in the product. Is this good/bad? How would the +1/-1 system work. Would
> votes be open to committers only in some instances, and to non-committing
> members only in others. Who votes membership vs committership vs
> contributorship?

Regarding votes, I believe that the votes for a particular codebase should
be open only to contributors only of that particular codebase, and that's it
(I'm not going to vote on Ant for example, or Turbine)... Votes regarding
accepting new codebases, starting new subprojects,  electing the PMC, that
should go only to members, not contributors...

My stance would be that if you start off being a contributor, no question
asked (from that point of view)... Patch contribute, do all you want and
need, you have fun? You want to spend more time on it and Jakarta is not
only something you're paid to work on? Kewl, just ask, could be fairly
automatic, it might as well happen automatically if someone "nominates" you
to do that... I don't think that a vote is even necessary to promote a
committer who wants to be a contributor, talk with someone who can sponsor
you, and I'll be fine...

For the ones who want to start as member, the procedure to become a
committer on one particular projects are already there, as if I wanted to
start giving some patches to (for example) Ant, and get involved with that


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

View raw message