Ben Caradoc-Davies ha scritto: > On 24/11/09 19:19, Andrea Aime wrote: >> If we do proper rotation we'll >> end up being one of the two figures once every 5-10 months >> depending on the release frequency. >> If a PSC member cannot bear to donate the project maintenance >> 2-4 days every 10 months he probably has no business >> sitting in the PSC to start with. At least imho. > > I am concerned that requiring PSC members to perform releases excludes > non-developers and intermittent developers from PSC membership, even > though they might have a major contribution to make to in the standards, > usability, or documentation spaces. I am sure there are those whose > contribution to the PSC I would value, but whom I would not like making > a release. I think GSIP 43 as it stands does not require PSC members to > volunteer, and I support this position. The PSC is about governance, not > engineering work. > > Furthermore, there are competent (or at least willing) release engineers > who might not be on the PSC who should not be excluded.
Absolutely, I agree with you that anyone willing should be involved in the release process. What I meant was that the PSC has to be there if no one else is available. Governance is little good if things do not get done. > Should we instead have a release roster, so the position rotates? This > need not be formed from PSC members. A written roster would give advance > warning to those expected to make a release, and give confidence to > those that usually end up doing the donkey work that they will not have > to do it *every* time. Such a roster would also expand the base of those > with experience making a release. We could also have a testing roster. I > am not sure about the roadmap. > > If there is a release roster, I volunteer to be on it, as long as it is > not just me. :-) That would be very much appreciated. If my reading Simone's position is correct we're going to make releases as resources as available. I still like the idea of timed releases, as I know we can accumulate a significant amount of work in one month, let alone two (just look at the current 2.0.x situation, 47 tickets have been closed since 2.0.0: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+GEOS+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%222.0.1%22+AND+status+in+%28Resolved%2C+Closed%29+ORDER+BY+updated+DESC%2C+priority+DESC%2C+created+ASC) Not sure I'd want to plan release positions for the next 6 months, but I think it would be good incentive to have a page, linked from the releases announcement, that shows who did the last releases. Should be enough incentive to make a rotation happen without making it a rule? But yeah, having a known group of people that are able and ready to make releases is certainly a good idea. I'm just worried about adding to much rules/bureocracy on top of it. Cheers Andrea -- Andrea Aime OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
