+1
See inline ..
Kevan Miller 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...)
It also isn't clear whether the required 3 positive votes for the
current RTC process are only binding if they are from the PMC. I think
that would create a bottleneck considering the current size of the PMC.
In http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html it says "Only votes by
PMC members are considered binding on code-modification issues", but I
think we should develop our own guidelines that formalizes who can vote
on code changes. For example, http://xml.apache.org/decisions.html has
their own policy on voting.
John
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
