On Aug 19, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > On 08/19/2010 12:48 PM, Stack wrote: >> I do not see how a combined contributor list could act as friction on >> the ongoing break-up of the hadoop project -- something I'm in favor >> of -- nor get in the way of the development of distinct mr/hdfs >> user+dev communities; it seems to me that that project can progress >> independent of who can commit where. > > I agree. > > Many projects manage such things with trust, not with rigid ACLs. Some > committers are trusted to commit just test code, some just documentation, and > some deep implementation details in particular areas of the code. But should > any committer wish to manage a release, or even commit a patch outside of > their normal domain of expertise (if it's been reviewed by someone with > expertise in that domain) they can. Over time they can gain trust in new > areas of the project. In such projects, adding a committer merely implies > that you trust someone not to overstep their abilities. If someone > consistently suggests that patches are ready for commit which others feel are > not, then they won't earn that trust and be invited to become a committer. > Thus committership is not about deep technical abilities, but personal trust > not to violate social contracts. Erecting walls within the community of > trust via ACLs doesn't seem productive. > > Doug
Agreed. Anyone want to reconsider their vote?
