> > >>> 1. What should be the role/responsibilities of those with commit access? >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - code review submitted patches to provide feedback >> > > So, I "disagree" on this. I think it should be the whole community. > Everyone who has a stake in Quagga should try help to review. > > Unless "maintainers" == "whole community", it can't scale otherwise. >
Agreed that everyone should help but if a non-maintainer acks a patch does a maintainer commit it without also reviewing it? - coordinate the release schedule >> - help contributors of quagga coordinate on feature development to avoid >> wasting cycles where two groups develop the same feature (ospf >> unnumbered >> comes to mind) >> > > Again, I think contributors and the wider community should feel > responsible for this, for scaling reasons. > > - commit patches >> > > - help build the community of users and developers >> > > Ditto, wider involvement is better here too. > > +1 to Martin's suggestion of letting the community decide (everyone gets a >> vote, not just the maintainers). I do not think it needs to be super >> formal. If someone thinks John/Jane Doe should be maintainer they send an >> email to quagga-dev suggesting so and let the discussion go from there. >> > > One of my concerns is to avoid the appearances of cliques, of especially > privileged groups (ironic perhaps coming from me, but hey). Some people are > shy, and aren't going to volunteer themselves. Some people are actively > turned off by the suggestion of cliques. Others outside potentially may > feel less inclined to participate (reviewing esp), because it may seem it > isn't their place. > I think that is something that we address if it becomes an issue. Daniel
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
