On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 17:36, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 14:20, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > I totally disagree with everything you just said.
> 
> Uhm, I think you disagree with the idea "we should have
> 'developers/contributors' with CVS access who are not committers". I'm
> not sure whether I support that idea yet.
> 
> You also disagree with the other stuff I said?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Missing the point I made that there might be people out there that want
> some of the rights that come with committer status, not caring about
> having all of them, while not wanting all of the duties that come with
> committer status.
> 

I want a million dollars with no responsibilities such as paying taxes
or any of that stuff.  With rights come responsibilities, such is life.

> Heck, I'll probably submit more than a few patches to centipede in the
> future; people will probably get tired of applying them and they might
> ask me to become a committer, to which I will say "no thanks" as I feel
> I have have no time to make that commitment. It'll still be easier for
> both the committers and me if I still get CVS access.
> 

Centipede is not a Jakarta project, and if the voting rules for
centipede are documented, I missed the link.  I think for the moment its
either common law or "understood" because nearly everyone there is a
committer on some Apache project somewhere.  

> I'm not saying we should allow it, just that there's two sides to the
> story.
> 

I'd in fact -1 the idea of giving you CVS access without agreeing to be
a committer.

Krysalis (from what I can tell) actually has a slightly different type
of committership.  One is a committer to all projects (meaning I get to
vote on Wings and Centipede both).

I think I may be (there) an excellent example of the type of "committer"
that Pier talks about.  I've actually committed 0 code to Wings or
Centipede.  All of my work has been in setup, publicising, cross
OS-testing, and well lots of little things that aren't code but that
well the project might not be where it is today had I not done them.  

> Case can be made that since putting something in CVS is putting
> something up for lazy majority vote (and I subscribe to that), this is
> not a good 'use case'. But what is wrong with a role for people that
> have the option to propose something for a lazy majority vote, and then
> no right/obligation to actually vote on that 'something' or anything
> else?
> 

I think with rights comes responsibility.  "Gee I'd like to dump my code
here and not bother with the community".... I want a million dollars
without bothering with earning it or the taxes or jailtime or
whatever...

-Andy

> g'night,
> 
> - Leo
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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]>

Reply via email to