Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)

[Alan D. Cabrera]

Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/12/2005 4:50 PM: Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan doesn't like that, so... Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for donated code are: 1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some number of people) who have worked with the code before 2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area, grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to some number of people who have worked with the code before 3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and potentially Geronimo people to form a new project team It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of these is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web console vs the ORB. Aaron I like #2.  To put a finer point to it, I think that we should have a single simple process. All vendors must propose the code donation to the community.  Embarrassing denials can be averted by creating a gmail account and asking if people are interested in technology X going into Geronimo. All code donations go into /geronimo/incubator/donationx/* The contributors would get restricted committer access to their project; granting committer access gives us better visibility how well the person works in a community setting.  They and, hopefully Geronimo committers, would whip it into shape.  The community would provide guidance and, hopefully, vote it into Geronimo once its ready and all the appropriate paper work was obtained. The "probationary" committers would, hopefully, get voted into Geronimo, regardless of their projects status.  I have never heard of a motivated developer not getting committer access. If the contribution was wildly popular it would graduate, as would any Geronimo module, to be a sub-project where it would have its own release cycles.  If it became obscenely popular, it would become a TLP. Regards, Alan