+1
On 6/3/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by
Geronimo (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's
interpretation of the RTC process).
In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated
that a +1 to an RTC request means "I have applied this patch and
tested it and found it good". Although a relaxation of this
interpretation has been suggested (or mentioned), to my knowledge
nothing has actually changed.
In some areas of Geronimo (e.g. devtools), this is a cumbersome and
difficult task for most committers. The fact that there are not more
committers interested in these areas of Geronimo is an acknowledged
issue. However, it's unlikely that current Geronimo committers want
to be intimately familiar with some of these Geronimo components --
we've all had our chance to get involved, so far, but have chosen not
to.
That's a specific problem with the current process. However, I think
there's a general problem with this interpretation for all areas of
Geronimo. IMO, this interpretation is not really helping to address
the fundamental problems/concerns which have prompted the move to
RTC. IMO, these concerns are that 1) some enhancements are not being
properly communicated with the Geronimo community, 2) too many
discussions/debates are occurring on private channels, and 3) some
people are being intimidated to remain silent on some public
discussions.
I'd like to see some specific RTC guidelines created for Geronimo.
I'm sure other projects must have already crafted similar guidelines.
So, I'd like to take a look at those, before spending too much time
on creating guidelines from scratch (I'd also like to shove 1.1. out
the door...)
In the meantime, I propose the following interpretation of a +1 vote
to an RTC request:
"I have reviewed (and possibly tested) this patch and found it good.
I understand the capability which the patch is adding and support the
direction in which it is taking the Geronimo project"
Comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome...
--kevan
