Valerie Bubb Fenwick <Valerie.Fenwick at Sun.COM> writes: > On Thu, 22 May 2008, Richard Lowe wrote: > >> Valerie Bubb Fenwick <Valerie.Fenwick at Sun.COM> writes: >> >>> On Wed, 21 May 2008, Ghee Teo wrote: >> >>>> - Black box thinking: What are the things we need to do to remove the need >>>> of >>>> moderator? >>>> For as long as we need a moderator, the process just would scale. >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean here? we have a moderator for the sponsor >>> process, >>> but that's mostly to keep us in line internally :) Once we move the gate >>> outside the firewall, we won't need the sponsor process or the moderator. >> >> While I'm aware Val knows this, I think it's probably best to be clear >> here. >> >> The above paragraph of Val's is incorrect on various levels, if read >> literally. >> >> - The sponsor process needs to exist either way. >> - There is (far) more to fixing this than merely changing where the >> gate is located. > > Actually, as far as I know, we are not planning on continuing the > sponsor process after the gate is outside the firewall. > > I think you might be confusing mentoring with sponsoring. We currently > provide mentoring for internal folks, who can do their own putback but > will likely have a lot of questions along the way. The sponsor process > is just so folks who can't currently type "putback" can actually still > contribute. :)
There will always be a set of folks who can't type 'putback' or 'hg push' and have it succeed. People who haven't been given write access, but still have contributions they wish to offer. In practice that would mean that this same conversation would probably be happening either way. As long as there are people wishing to make changes and unable to integrate them themselves, we need a way to accept those changes. -- Rich
