On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 16:55, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >... >> Personally I feel that GSoC students should earn commit access just >> like anyone else. > > I have a lot of sympathy for Greg's position. Treating 'committer' as > a single monolithic category drives people away.
Right. It is necessary to distinguish between "commit access [to a branch]" and "commit access [to trunk]". I fully concur that access to trunk follows the same pattern as regular committers. GSoC students have no elevated rights. However, I think providing a GSoC student with commit to a branch is an easy decision, and that it should be the default policy. (for the reasons listed in my previous note) [ next part strays from the GSoC discussion ] >... > should have to. I'd be happy to see the foundation endorse the idea > that a PMC can choose to grant commit karma to branches, in a trial > basis, to people who have submitted a suitable cla. That would not > given them nexus karma, web-site-editing karma, or dogma karma. The Subversion PMC has an operating rule that basic states, "any individual PMC member may grant commit access to a non-trunk area, to a developer with an ICLA on file". There is a subjective level to this: does it clearly make sense (say, a branch), or might it be a little controversial (say, the directory for the 'svn' command-line tool). For the latter, we encourage the Member to float the idea on private@ first. But we don't have a strict written policy here; good judgement is always a great replacement for more rules :-) I would very much encourage other PMCs to adopt similar policies. Again, with version control, the phrase "damage control" almost doesn't apply. Cheers, -g
