I changed "Developer" to "Contributer" throughout the guidelines, if for no other reason than to match the terminology of the "Contributor License" distributed by the ASF.
Personally, I feel that the current guidelines do express the concept that committing is voting by lazy consensus. That's why there is a lazy consensus: so we can propose, vote, and make-it-so in one fell swoop. Volunteer time is a precious resource and we need to make the most of it. A substantial patch to the guidelines was proposed some time ago that might help clarify this and other fine points. http://jakarta.apache.org/site/proposal.html -- 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 Leo Simons wrote: > this is not quite reflective of our current situation. The term > "developer" can sometimes be misleading ("contributor" would be better, > perhaps), while "committer" perhaps should include some added guidelines > wrt responsibilities. > > You might call the fact that these definitions are somewhat out of whack > a "systemic bottleneck". > > > Since committing is voting, what I think what some people want is a > > non-vetoing Committer. > > I think 'some people' don't see/don't agree to the "committing is > voting", and then what they want is a Developer-with-CVS-access, which > is more or less what they said. > > "Committing is voting" is not reflected in our guidelines (at least I > couldn't find such a notion). > > > Someone to do the work without sharing in the > > responsibility. > > sounds like what we call "developer" in our guidelines ;) > > > Which is to say, we can reject what they do, but they > > can't reject what we do. Personally, I would find that type of > > master/slave relationship difficult to maintain in a volunteer > > organization like this. If you are working hard enough to need commit > > rights, you are working hard enough to have veto rights. > > What if someone wants/needs commit rights but doesn't want the veto > rights (and responsibilities)? The right to vote also means an > obligation to vote/abstain. The implication of your statement is "if you > are given cvs access, you should also take on the responsibility of > voting". > > cheers, > > - Leo > > -- > 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]>
