On 02/06/2011 14:43, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Brouwer<simon.o...@xs4all.nl> wrote on 06/02/2011 09:21:53 AM:
Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in
addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the
proposal on the wiki.
I had already been so bold as to adding myself to the list, expressing
my support to the proposal. I was wondering though. In the
OpenOffice.org project, many community members contribute in other ways
than committing code, for example by writing or translating
documentation, being active in the marketing project, taking part in QA.
Some concern has been expressed that, if the meritocratic system in
Apache is based on code contribution only, those community members are
not able to fully become part of the OpenOffice.org Apache project or
the Apache community.
Excellent question, Simon!
I've certainly seen QA committers. I assume translators would be similar.
If you are contributing assets to the project, asserts that are checked
in, and which should be peer reviewed and maintained, then the project
needs a way to identify the project members are have the authority to
check in these assets, but also the responsibility to review and check in
the assets contributed by others.
Actually there is no need to "commit assets". Anything that contributes
to the health of the community is considered worthy of merit. E.g. first
level user support on mailing lists, issue tracker maintenance etc.
Our VP Marketing has no idea how to user version control and she's been
around as an ASF Member for a long time (I'm sure Sally won't mind me
saying that in this context). I'm pretty sure there are others who have
never typed "svn ci . -m '...'" in their lives.
Where the barrier is set is dependant on the individual project, but
during incubation we like it to be extremely low. So in this case all
are welcome whether they intend to commit assets or provide some kind of
"back-office" support for the incubating project.
What isn't clear to me are things like the following:
1) A strong QA member, who does manual testing, enters defect reports,
does smoke tests, etc. How do they advance in the meritocracy? Is there
any opportunity for them to be recognized as a committer and eventually as
a PMC member?
Exactly the same as any other committer.
We see them doing work and nominate them for committership. See
http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html (specifically the section
"Guidelines for assessing new candidates for committership")
It's important to understand one of our key rules around here is "if it
didn't happen on the list, it didn't happen". As well encouraging
transparency this ensures that peoples hard work is visible and thus
earns merit.
2) Ditto for someone working on marketing oriented aspects of the project,
helping to arrange conferences, working on logos, etc.?
Ditto above
3) Ditto for someone on the build/release management side, for example,
liaising with Linux distros to get them to include OpenOffice releases.
Ditto above
All of these roles (and others which I've surely missed) are critical to
the project's success. How does a project typically recognize the lead
contributors in these areas? Is it a case of "If it is not checked into
the repository, it doesn't count" ?? I hope note.
OpenOffice.org is no different to any other project in these respects,
it works for all our existing projects, I'm confident it will work for
OpenOffice.org ;-)
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
