I totally disagree with everything you just said. I think "committer"
status should be granted to folks who do *other* things outside of CVS.
But the key word is "Do". So pretend for a second that Pier is *not
otherwise* a comitter to Tomcat and wherever, he does a lot of other
stuff like manage bugzilla. And bugzilla...what a pain. So I would say
Pier should be granted some voting rights etc. I think thats the goal
here and I agree with to goal, but none of the proposals I've seen spell
out tight enough constraints.
I do NOT think developers should be granted CVS access without voting
rights. Thats a cop out. That says "Gee we trust you in CVS but don't
want to give you the rights to control your work or give you any
ownership in what you do". If they are frequent enough committers to
require CVS access...then they deserve the rights there under.
-Andy
Leo Simons wrote:
>>Since this is a volunteer organization, and we all have other pressing
>>responsibilities, it is important that we do not encourage any systemic
>>bottlenecks.
>>
>>
>
>I wrote:
>"> > user: no rights, no responsibilities
>
>
>>>developer: right to get quoted as author for authored pieces, no
>>>responsibility
>>>committer: right to vote as per voting guidelines, responsibility to
>>>sign and submit Contributor License Agreement
>>>pmc member: right and obligation to set overall project direction"
>>>
>>>
>
>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]>
