This all feels overdetermined :) I have added Even to the appropriate group so he can push/merge and manage issues. :) :) :) P
> On Jul 17, 2024, at 11:12 AM, Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 01:25:23AM -0400, Regina Obe wrote: >>>>> It would be about time to stop calling that role "committer", btw, >>>>> as with `git` everyone has commit rights, we should find some >>>>> other word (same problem with most other projects). >>>> >>>> Indeed. Obviously we should call it "pusher". >>> >>> How about core team? Pusher sounds so druggy. >> >> What makes having write access to the repository any different from being > a >> "maintainer" ? Roles would then be: >> >> 1. PSC >> 2. Co-Maintainer >> 3. Contributor (contributed commits, pushed by others) >> >> --strk; >> >> Libre GIS consultant/developer >> https://strk.kbt.io/services.html > A matter of semantics I guess. In my mind Co-Maintainer defines a higher > level of commitment than > Core Contributor. > > So I would have: > > 1. PSC - May or may not have direct rights to push changes to the repo, but > manages the direction of the project > 2. Co-Maintainer - is generally one on the PSC who manages the release > cycle, triages tickets, takes patches from other users etc > 3. Core contributor/developer - has rights to push changes to the repo, but > may only be interested in what they are interested in and could care less > about triaging anything but their stuff. But we trust enough to do no harm. > 3. Contributor (contributed commits, pushed by others) > > In my mind - Even R is a Core Contributor, but not a Co-Maintainer. > I would actually only consider Paul, Dan, and Martin as Co-Maintainers > > Thanks, > Regina > >
