Gav.... wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Crossley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Community health
David Crossley wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> David Crossley escribi??:
> > Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > However, there are more general community issues here as well,
and > > > I
> > > would like to look at them. Here are three community
observations > > > (and
> > > as far as I am concerned the really important part of this):
> > >
> > > 1) Some people seem to feel that the normal ASF meritocracy is not
> > > sufficient credit within Forrest. Why should Forrest be
different > > > from
> > > other ASF projects? Do we need to do something different?
>
> Hmm, what is your definition of normal?
See the end of my previous email in this thread.
In my copius spare time i plan to add a section
to our project guidelines to define exactly
how we currently acknowledge contributions.
Then we can discuss in a calm manner whether
any of that needs changing. Or hopefully each
one of us can fine-tune and edit that in
the normal opensource fashion.
Okay i have made an attempt to capture how we
currently do this. Not yet published to the site,
so look at your local copy.
cd site-author
svn up
forrest run
http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#way
http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#contribution
"Lazy approval" applies.
That looks pretty good to me and something I am happy
to go with as is.
+1000
Of the 12 Active Committers, probably about 7 of those are what I call
at the moment Currently Active Commiters, of those 7 I dont remember how
many are committing other contributors patches.
Is this enough do you think, considering the current speed of
development of 0.8 and the need to support and patch 0.7 ?
This is not enough. All committers need to put time into maintaining the
project as a whole. It is not just about committing code patches, but
updating docs, publishing the website, user support etc.
However, the reality is this is a volunteer effort and we all do what we
can. The problem with saying "out loud" that *we*, the community, need
to do more, is that individuals who do not currently have the time may
feel that the words are targetted at them
Maybe, to reduce pressure of the busiest committers and to let them get
on with their own coding, maybe there should be an initial level of
Committer that is not a PMC member until such time as they would
normally be voted in as is current a Committer/PMC Member. This level of
Committer only will allow for more contributors to help by applying
other peoples patches and reduce the workload for others currently doing
the job.
This has been discussed many times (see archives). The summary is that
it is not seen as a good idea. The only reason for the PMC is to have a
private place to discuss issues that cannot be discussed in public, for
example, security issues. PMC membership does not, generally, requrie
any more commitment than being a committer. Therefore, having a second
level of committership will not really change the situation. Either
someone has the time/inclination to apply patches or they do not - not
being in the PMC will not change that.
...
Ah well, something to think about anyway. And yes, I have seen previous
discussions about this in the past and remember them well. Just a timely
reminder :)
If there is any reason to change past decisions we need to hear them.
Otherwise we are ust wasting time going over old gound. In other words,
is there anything in the past discussions that you feel is no longer
appropriate to this decision?
Second point (hmm, so all the above is just one point!) , how about
their being hyperlinks to Contributors/Committers sites within the
changes document. Seeing a load of [TS] [RDG] [DC] etc all over the
place is hardly informing to the outsider.
I am of the opinon that who applies what change is irrelevant. However,
I have no objection to such links if others want them.
Ross
