> If becoming a contributor means I don’t have to sync up with the “herd” or “pack", and can just push changes in, without any review, or repercussion, then that isn’t exactly community or being responsible
As a committer I expect *precisely* to be able to push changes without any review. As a committer I will take responsibility for my actions and I accept the repercussions ranging from personal embarrassment to full-blown vote against. I really don't see an empowered committer as someone outside the community. I believe the Apache "Lazy Consensus" matches my view perfectly. Of course, changing public APIs or doing massive refactoring or large new features without some review is one thing, but day to day bug fixing, small improvements and features, etc. really need no oversight. Just a single committer with the time and know how. --emi On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Wade Chandler <wadechand...@apache.org> wrote: > I think it already does mean something. Contributors have the right to > actually vote, where as someone sending a patch doesn’t. Contributors can > actually merge something in. Contributors get a massive deal on ApacheConf > tickets. We have Apache user IDs and other items of access many don’t. But, > I think one of our responsibilities is laying out a process which helps > makes working in our community better, more efficient, able to make > progress, and at the same time help keep the quality of the project high. > > If becoming a contributor means I don’t have to sync up with the “herd” or > “pack", and can just push changes in, without any review, or repercussion, > then that isn’t exactly community or being responsible, and certainly we > can “vote someone out” or have a bigger discussion after the fact were > someone to be that way, but this feels the difference in being proactive > virus waiting for something like that to happen. Imagine we could all put a > road, side walk, or park where we wanted just because we were on some city > council some where, even if we had the best intentions, and thought > everyone else would think it was a good idea. That seems a decent analogy. > > I also don’t believe a process has to be very heavy versus some general > imperatives of NetBeans, guidelines, and a very transparent and light PR > process to allow imperative and guideline review, plus help us all reduce > bugs ahead of time. A review doesn’t mean one isn’t trusted, but is > technically a mutual trust exercise: > http://www.davidwhitney.co.uk/Blog/2016/04/ <http://www.davidwhitney.co. > uk/Blog/2016/04/> > > Wade > > > > On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:16, Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > A process will emerge but I find it important that a committer should > actually *mean* something. > > > > It does and should mean extra rights and extra responsibilities. > > > > > > > > --emi > > > > Pe 27 feb. 2017, la 16:43, Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> a scris: > > > >> That's true. Good point. > >> > >> Still, we'll need some kind of process, i.e., a staging process as well > as > >> test specifications for those who'll be testing new releases etc. > >> > >> Gj > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>> I fear a future where everyone can simply put anything > >>> into NetBeans in Apache without any kind of intermediate or staging > >>> process. > >>> > >>> Not everybody will be an Apache committer and that's why we have a vote > >>> for it. > >>> > >>> --emi > >>> > >>> Pe 27 feb. 2017, la 16:08, Geertjan Wielenga < > >>> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> a scris: > >>> > >>>> I fear a future where everyone can simply put anything > >>>> into NetBeans in Apache without any kind of intermediate or staging > >>> process. > >>> > >
