On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Daniel Walton wrote: > > I do not think quagga should abandon its current model, I think we just >> need a larger number of active maintainers. >> > > No disagreement, for certain aspects of "maintainers". :) > > In the early days, the number of people regularly active on Quagga was == > the maintainers. > > Do we make everyone and anyone regularly active on Quagga a 'maintainer'? > > If yes, does that scale? > > It might become the wild west or it might work just fine. I guess it depends on how we define "regularly active" and how many maintainers that would result in. If we end up with 20+ maintainers things might get a little interesting. We would probably get code committed much faster though so it might be worth it.
Personally I think 5 to 10 active maintainers would be a better number to aim for. > If no, we're back to having one privileged group, versus the rest of the > community. Unless everyone has commit access there will always be a privileged group...I'd rather have an active privileged group than completely open things up. Daniel
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
