On 23 July 2011 19:40, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > After we vote in a new committer, there are several steps that follow, > including sending them an note telling them they've been voted in, > having them return an iCLA, waiting for the iCLA to be recorded, > choosing an Apache ID, getting an Apache account, etc. > > At what point are they considered officially to be a committer? For > example, at what point can they veto a code modification?
An interesting question - one I've never considered before. There is no policy on this that I am aware of. I would say that on all the projects I have experience it is at the point the public statement is made. Of course, since the (P)PMC have voted in the committer they should have been considering the individuals opinion as "binding" for a while already (meaning they are already a valued member of the community and have demonstrated value to and an understanding of the project already. > I'm trying to better understand the status of those who never complete > the above set of steps. If the "trigger point" is the public announcement then the individual will have accepted but not necessarily submitted an ICLA. However, an ICLA is only needed for commit access (or significant contributions). Remember a veto needs to be supported with an alternative implementation and a willingness to help implement the alternative. If the individual has no ICLA on file and nobody supports the veto then there is nobody to implement the alternative. So it is entirely possible that a veto under these circumstances would not be valid. Given that a veto is an action of last resort I wouldn't worry about this anyway, community mechanisms tend to deal with these things if they ever emerge. Ross > > > -Rob > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
