John Wang wrote:
I agree with the process itself, what would make it better is
some transparency on how patches/issues are evaluated to be committed.
To be clear: there is no forum for communication about patches except
this list, and, by extension, Jira. The process of patch evaluation is
completely transparent.
At least seemed from the outside, it is purely being decided on by the
committers, and since my understanding is that an open source project
belongs to the public, the public user base should have some say.
It is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
I'll repeat: committers are added when they've both contributed a series
of high-quality, easy-to-commit patches, and when they've demonstrated
that they are easy to work with. That process has resulted in the
current set of committers, and those committers determine which patches
are committed and when. Those are the rules.
However committers cannot ram just any patch through. Committers are
only added after they've demonstrated the ability to build consensus
around their patches. And they must continue to build consensus around
their patches even after they are committers. Patches that receive no
endorsement from others are not committed, no matter who contributes
them. A contribution is not more rapidly committed simply because the
contributor is a committer. Rather, committers knows how to elicit and
respond to criticism and build consensus around a patch in order to get
them committed rapidly.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
