On Thu, 22 May 2008, Richard Lowe wrote: > 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.
Talking offline with Rich, I know realize he & I both have different ideas of what the plan is going forward for the sponsor process after the gate (and all required tools, alanc ;) are outside of SWAN. It had always been my impression from when we started the sponsorship process that it was a "temporary" stop-gap measure until people could do their own putbacks. Rich mentions above that we may not want to let any unknown person off the street do an integration from the get-go, like until they've had a few proven good integrations. We have no such process for internal employees, but Rich noted that we don't really need one because is an internal employee does something malicious to the gate - they will have repercussions with their management. No such luck if that person doesn't work for Sun. I hadn't thought about that, but can see how we may want to limit who can commit changes even once everything is external. JBeck or others - is there a new plan on this? or should we just start brainstorming one? Valerie -- Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025. 650-786-0461
