Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 18:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: costinm@covalent.net
To: Jakarta General List <general@jakarta.apache.org>
cc: Tomcat Developers List <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Committer access and responsibilities...
In-Reply-To: <B9148622.11309%pier@betaversion.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205241843090.718-100000@costinm.sfo.covalent.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

-1

If someone doesn't want to be involved in the voting - he can do exaclty
that, abstain. If someone doesn't want to support a particular release -
he can abstain from the release vote( or vote +-0 ). 

If you spend time and write code for a project and are willing to
maintain/support - and if the people on the project vote you in, 
you have the same rights as all the other people on that project.


I do agree ( and I advocated for this a lot ) on lowering ( or 
eliminating) the walls between projects, so jakarta commiters can commit 
code in any jakarta project ( subject to the normal project rules ).
Some people didn't agree with that even for commons, and I accepted the
fact. 

If you are a commiter - you have the same rights with all other commiters.
If you don't want to exercise some rights - it's your choice. 


Costin


On Sat, 25 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:

> Chatted with a lot of people, seen many, different development models, went
> around, asked, talked, and I believe I have a pretty decent picture, and
> maybe even a solution...
> 
> So the major topic of discussion is that I perceive a substantial difference
> between being able to commit code to a CVS repository, and being a
> "committer" committer, with all dues and responsibilities that this role
> concerns...
> 
> For example sometimes someone might want to have commit access just because
> he is working for a company that deals with a particular project in Apache
> (we've seen this happening several times with some projects such as Xerces
> and Tomcat), but he really doesn't care about the whole fuzz of Apache and
> stuff, and once the employment contract ends, the relationship with Apache
> terminates as well (I don't need to enumerate all those examples along those
> lines).
> 
> One other example, if we didn't have Henri building RPMs for basically all
> Jakarta projects (and others), or if Henri wasn't a committer on Tomcat,
> don't you think that he would deserve committer status even if he's not tied
> to any particular codebase? We had this "problem" in the current election of
> the members, Sally Khudairi: Sally doesn't code, but she was involved with
> the ASF since before it was even created as a press organizer. Does she
> deserve to be a member of the foundation? Even if she doesn't code? Yes she
> does, IMO (and she was elected and nominated a member today)...
> 
> So, IMO, there's a great difference between being a coder, and being a
> member of the Jakarta community, at least in my opinion. There might be
> coders who are not involved with the community, and there might be
> non-coders who are much involved with it, want to participate, are active
> and deserve to be committers...
> 
> Our current structure doesn't "allow" that to happen, both things. If you
> need to write code in a particular source-base, and you need CVS access, you
> are automagically made a committer, even if you don't care about much else,
> and if you're very much involved with the overall project, but not tied to
> ANY whatsoever codebase, and really, don't want / can't do it.
> 
> So, given this little background, I would like to ask to the PMC, and all
> other committers, if others agree that we should "splitting" the "committer"
> figure in two parts:
> 
> - contributor: a contributor is someone who has access to a particular CVS
> tree, but for any reason doesn't want/need to be involved with the whole
> Jakarta community. He just wants to code his little bit and live a long
> life.
> 
> - member: is someone who is involved with the Jakarta community, somehow,
> somewhere (might be just giving a great deal in supporting users of our
> projects, or providing extra value to projects, like guidance in respect to
> overall specifications, binary builds). He is effectively a member of the
> community and has all the rights and dues of every member, such as
> participate in the election of the PMC.
> 
> And redefining the figure of the "committer" as follows:
> 
> - committer: is a contributor, but also a member, therefore he has all the
> privileges and dues of a contributor (having CVS access, and overlooking the
> code he's contributing to) and of a member (can vote for PMCs, should
> participate and contribute to discussions on the overall structure of
> Jakarta).
> 
> I believe this makes sense, more sense than what we have now, also because
> we've seen that happening in the ASF for the very first time with a
> non-coding member. Comments please?
> 
>     Pier
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:general-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>