On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 14:15, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Well said. > I subscribe to this. > > We should remember that people that contribute so much should be proposed as > committers, regardless to the code submitted, as is done AFAIK in POI, > Struts, Cocoon, Forrest, Avalon, and the Krysalis projects (that refer to > Apache guidelines). >
I dunno, I think there is a point... I would probably be reluctant to ask for CVS access for someone whom I did not trust could use it properly, but I think we'd still vote them a committer....then again I'd -1 anyone being a committer who I didn't think had the good sense not to play in CVS if they didn't know what they were doing...so its probably moot. -Andy > -- > Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - verba volant, scripta manent - > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 6:59 PM > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Committer access and responsibilities... > > > > Those who do the work of creating a Jakarta product are entitled to make > > the decisions regarding that product. A successful product is more than > > code, it also requires documentation and support and easy-to-use > > distributions. > > > > Whether a patch is to the code or the documentation isn't relevant. A > > patch is a patch, a contribution is a contribution, and anyone who > > makes sustained contributions to a product is elligible to become a > > committer. > > > > A change to the codebase can affect everyone, including them that don't > > code but "simply" document. They should have as much to say about the > > codebase as everyone else. > > > > The real point behind meritocracy, I believe, is that we are all equal > > and there is no formal hierarchy. It's also a big part of what > > makes Jakarta both fun and different from our regular jobs. > > > > We have a simple and effective system here that's been proven to work. > > I don't believe that the formal system is broken or needs to be > > refactored. > > > > -1 on there being shades of gray between contributors and committers. > > > > A contributor is anyone who has submitted code, documentation or > > any other deliverable that has been made part of the product. > > Committers do the work of creating the product by posting > > contributions to the CVS or other secure area. > > > > +1 on "non-coders" or "specialists" being voted as committers when > > the circumstances warrant. There is nothing to prevent this now > > nor should there ever be. If its OK with the other committers to a > > product, there's no reason for the rest of us to care. If it's not > > OK with the other committers, then it is not the system that's > > broken, but the committers -- and no amount of tinkering is going > > to fix that. > > > > -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY US > > -- Developing Java Web Applications with Struts > > -- Tel: +1 585 737-3463 > > -- Web: http://husted.com/about/services > > > > > > > > Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > > > > > Chatted with a lot of people, seen many, different development models, > went > > > around, asked, talked, and I believe I have a pretty decent picture, and > > > maybe even a solution... > > > > > > So the major topic of discussion is that I perceive a substantial > difference > > > between being able to commit code to a CVS repository, and being a > > > "committer" committer, with all dues and responsibilities that this role > > > concerns... > > > > > > For example sometimes someone might want to have commit access just > because > > > he is working for a company that deals with a particular project in > Apache > > > (we've seen this happening several times with some projects such as > Xerces > > > and Tomcat), but he really doesn't care about the whole fuzz of Apache > and > > > stuff, and once the employment contract ends, the relationship with > Apache > > > terminates as well (I don't need to enumerate all those examples along > those > > > lines). > > > > > > One other example, if we didn't have Henri building RPMs for basically > all > > > Jakarta projects (and others), or if Henri wasn't a committer on Tomcat, > > > don't you think that he would deserve committer status even if he's not > tied > > > to any particular codebase? We had this "problem" in the current > election of > > > the members, Sally Khudairi: Sally doesn't code, but she was involved > with > > > the ASF since before it was even created as a press organizer. Does she > > > deserve to be a member of the foundation? Even if she doesn't code? Yes > she > > > does, IMO (and she was elected and nominated a member today)... > > > > > > So, IMO, there's a great difference between being a coder, and being a > > > member of the Jakarta community, at least in my opinion. There might be > > > coders who are not involved with the community, and there might be > > > non-coders who are much involved with it, want to participate, are > active > > > and deserve to be committers... > > > > > > Our current structure doesn't "allow" that to happen, both things. If > you > > > need to write code in a particular source-base, and you need CVS access, > you > > > are automagically made a committer, even if you don't care about much > else, > > > and if you're very much involved with the overall project, but not tied > to > > > ANY whatsoever codebase, and really, don't want / can't do it. > > > > > > So, given this little background, I would like to ask to the PMC, and > all > > > other committers, if others agree that we should "splitting" the > "committer" > > > figure in two parts: > > > > > > - contributor: a contributor is someone who has access to a particular > CVS > > > tree, but for any reason doesn't want/need to be involved with the whole > > > Jakarta community. He just wants to code his little bit and live a long > > > life. > > > > > > - member: is someone who is involved with the Jakarta community, > somehow, > > > somewhere (might be just giving a great deal in supporting users of our > > > projects, or providing extra value to projects, like guidance in respect > to > > > overall specifications, binary builds). He is effectively a member of > the > > > community and has all the rights and dues of every member, such as > > > participate in the election of the PMC. > > > > > > And redefining the figure of the "committer" as follows: > > > > > > - committer: is a contributor, but also a member, therefore he has all > the > > > privileges and dues of a contributor (having CVS access, and overlooking > the > > > code he's contributing to) and of a member (can vote for PMCs, should > > > participate and contribute to discussions on the overall structure of > > > Jakarta). > > > > > > I believe this makes sense, more sense than what we have now, also > because > > > we've seen that happening in the ASF for the very first time with a > > > non-coding member. Comments please? > > > > > > Pier > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- http://www.superlinksoftware.com - software solutions for business http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document in Java http://krysalis.sourceforge.net/centipede - the best build/project structure a guy/gal could have! - Make Ant simple on complex Projects! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
