Re: Criteria for commit access
On Sat, 25 May 2002 07:37, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On 5/24/02 5:28 PM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: If one quarter of the new commiters make 1/2 the contributions that people like Sam Ruby did - I'm quite happy. As Mark Twain once said The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. But he only said it once. Let us keep the legend alive! :) Is anyone else reminded of the end of the Braveheart movie ? -- Cheers, Peter Donald -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I said was but I believe that this group (as noted on the members meeting this Tuesday) is giving away committer privileges a little bit too easily... I don't think that sound like this is a resolution passed by members or this is a guideline given at that meeting... To me it sounds like what happened: we were talking about what it does take for one person to become a committer and/or a member, expectations and bars... That's it... If I was misunderstood, well, sorry... I understand, I still think thats something that if you are a voting committer of the Tomcat dev group you should -1 and argue your point there. That's what I did... I posted my -1 over there, detailed why, and I'm waiting for someone to write me back something about it... So far, nothing worth making me change my vote (meaning, nothing more than what was already there). I do not think the PMC should override the decision of the Tomcat group simply because you disagree with them. No, my vote is binding... It's not a majority... I don't need the PMC to block the thing from happening... They might need the PMC to unblock the situation since I'm a stubborn donkey! :) I feel that the Tomcat guys have been at this awhile and if you trust them to be on the server, well then I guess you trust them to decide who should be on the server. I trust _some_ of them on the server, as I believe not all of them trust me (talking about code)... The only thing that _noone_ yet wrote to me on the tomcat list saying no, you should change your vote in a +1 or a 0 because and because makes me feel that (probably) I was right... Actually on the same topic, few other people raised my same concern and agreed (although not posting another -1 vote)... We're all civilized and stuff :) :) :) :) It is of general interest (IMO) because becoming a committer entitles you not only to a little peaceful heaven in your own little project, but entitles you (and, frankly, obliges you) to be a part of the Jakarta Community at large. You will be given (for example) access to the jakarta-commons CVS repo (if that didn't change lately), it entitles you to put your name on the website and to elect the PMC. I regard that as enfranchisement in the federation or confederation that is Jakarta. If the Tomcat community trusts your judgement enough to make you a voting committer in that project, and Jakarta trusts the Tomcat community enough to make it a member project, then you hence are enfranchised in the federal or confederal (sp?) union that is Jakarta. I normally trust the my co-committers on Tomcat, yes. Best coders I've seen on this planet (of course apart notable exceptions, but that's another story). But trusting them doesn't need to mean that I'm going to jump of a cliff if they all do it, right? The only information I have to vote +1 for this guy on MY project (tomcat) are a handful of email, and 3 weeks of history... I'm sorry, but I need to know someone before I can honestly say he's my buddy and I want to have him on my project And at large, it entitles you to have an @apache.org email address, to have access to our live servers, entitles you to be a part of the whole Apache family... you're point being? My point being that there's something behind having a name on the CVS avail file and an entry in /etc/passwd... :) I'm sorry, but I believe that any time a new committer is made, we _need_ to put some thought in what we're giving away, we're not just letting a guy commit to our CVS server... And I don't disagree with you. Its a states rights argument. You're questioning whether this community has the right to bring someone into the inner circle of the community. I say its their right. Yes it affects us all, but it is their right as a project to do so. Indeed... It is. I'm not arguing with that. I wouldn't do it for POI (for example), I trust your judgment, as a committer, that you will only let other good people in our community... As you trust me to bring only good people in the community, right? Now, I seriously don't know the guy we're supposed to vote in, really, and FWIW, he should be working with me on my same codebase... You see the point? I don't know if he's a good person for your (and mine) community... Its like if you have a child, he'll likely be accepted as a citizen of the country that you are a citizen of, yet your countrymen probably are not consulted in the process, though it has an affect on them. I regard that as freedom. Indeed.. But I was _asked_ to vote him in... You see my point? I trust you for who you let in thru POI... The POI project has been hard to give folks commit access and soft for others. Its been up to the judgement of the committers. Sometimes we've been easier on some because they fit well into the community and were working on an essential piece of the project, other times we've not been so easy
Re: Criteria for commit access
That's what I did... I posted my -1 over there, detailed why, and I'm waiting for someone to write me back something about it... So far, nothing worth making me change my vote (meaning, nothing more than what was already there). So that means its vetoed...what's your beef? No, my vote is binding... It's not a majority... I don't need the PMC to block the thing from happening... They might need the PMC to unblock the situation since I'm a stubborn donkey! :) I do not think the PMC should intervene just because the others disagree. This looks like an issue that is totally restricted to the Tomcat community. I don't understand the issue. The system is working. . .why raise a fuss elsewhere. You have an issue with the standards and you've vetoed the committership. This seems to me to be exactly what is supposed to happen... I trust _some_ of them on the server, as I believe not all of them trust me (talking about code)... The only thing that _noone_ yet wrote to me on the tomcat list saying no, you should change your vote in a +1 or a 0 because and because makes me feel that (probably) I was right... Actually on the same topic, few other people raised my same concern and agreed (although not posting another -1 vote)... We're all civilized and stuff :) :) :) :) So the system works! Good news! I normally trust the my co-committers on Tomcat, yes. Best coders I've seen on this planet (of course apart notable exceptions, but that's another bzzzt wrong. :-p We sucked up the best coders on the planet for the POI project ;-) story). But trusting them doesn't need to mean that I'm going to jump of a cliff if they all do it, right? Right but it should be up to ya'll tomcatters to work out your standards amonst yerselves. Thats my only issue. The only information I have to vote +1 for this guy on MY project (tomcat) are a handful of email, and 3 weeks of history... I'm sorry, but I need to know someone before I can honestly say he's my buddy and I want to have him on my project If I were a tomcat committer I'd vote with you, but I rarely understand those Tomcat guys. Who DOES understand those Tomcat guys anyhow ;-). And at large, it entitles you to have an @apache.org email address, to have access to our live servers, entitles you to be a part of the whole Apache family... you're point being? My point being that there's something behind having a name on the CVS avail file and an entry in /etc/passwd... :) But its up to the Tomcat community. The system works. No action is needed aside from that you've taken on the Tomcat list. And I don't disagree with you. Its a states rights argument. You're questioning whether this community has the right to bring someone into the inner circle of the community. I say its their right. Yes it affects us all, but it is their right as a project to do so. Indeed... It is. I'm not arguing with that. I wouldn't do it for POI (for example), I trust your judgment, as a committer, that you will only let other good people in our community... As you trust me to bring only good people in the community, right? Right, my question is now why this is being brought to general @ jakarta and cross posted when its an internal issue to Tomcat. If we need a webpage to give guidence to the communities as to how and when to make someone a committer, well thats fine, but I wouldn't like to see the PMC tell us who we can and can't make committers based on only what information flows up. Those decisions belong rightly to the communities. Now, I seriously don't know the guy we're supposed to vote in, really, and FWIW, he should be working with me on my same codebase... You see the point? I don't know if he's a good person for your (and mine) community... I totally (based only on the information you've provided) agree. But I also think my opinion should be counted as worthless on the topic. Indeed.. But I was _asked_ to vote him in... You see my point? I trust you for who you let in thru POI... No, you voted -1. They have a right to try and convince you to change you vote, but the issue is decided. Oh no, Andy... I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood... I am not asking anyone to override anything... I _was_ asked to vote, I voted -1 for my reasons, because I AM a tomcat committer... Hope that clears it :) So why post to PMC and general etc? No action is needed. I don't cc them everytime I vote for a committer, why if I'm voting against? When reading this I thought you were campaigning the PMC and general body of jakarta to enforce standards on the communities as to who they can and can't let be committers. That triggered the Andy alarm as I don't really want them to decide for POI or Lucene who we can and can't make committers. If I have an issue I'll take it up with said communities and not cross post it to general etc. -Andy Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Re: Criteria for commit access
Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I did... I posted my -1 over there, detailed why, and I'm waiting for someone to write me back something about it... So far, nothing worth making me change my vote (meaning, nothing more than what was already there). So that means its vetoed...what's your beef? Andy, not everyone grew up in Texas! :) I don't eat beef anymore (you know mad-cow disease and smallpox in the UK) No, my vote is binding... It's not a majority... I don't need the PMC to block the thing from happening... They might need the PMC to unblock the situation since I'm a stubborn donkey! :) I do not think the PMC should intervene just because the others disagree. This looks like an issue that is totally restricted to the Tomcat community. I don't understand the issue. The system is working. . .why raise a fuss elsewhere. You have an issue with the standards and you've vetoed the committership. This seems to me to be exactly what is supposed to happen... Because it is the very first time that someone -1s a new committer. I've never seen it happening, and I want more feedback from all the different possible sources ever... I CCed members because I esteem the judgement and knowledge of every single one of them and I had _very_ good feedback from them, I CCed PMC because I'm utterly stupid and still I don't remember to use general@ for trivial/crossproject matters (and I welcome Costin's correction in forwarding it to the appropriate list)... From general@ I want feedback as well, we're talking about it, several people responded, so I'm trying to challenge my own -1 with comments not only from the restricted group of Tomcat... I trust _some_ of them on the server, as I believe not all of them trust me (talking about code)... The only thing that _noone_ yet wrote to me on the tomcat list saying no, you should change your vote in a +1 or a 0 because and because makes me feel that (probably) I was right... Actually on the same topic, few other people raised my same concern and agreed (although not posting another -1 vote)... We're all civilized and stuff :) :) :) :) So the system works! Good news! I still don't follow I normally trust the my co-committers on Tomcat, yes. Best coders I've seen on this planet (of course apart notable exceptions, but that's another bzzzt wrong. :-p We sucked up the best coders on the planet for the POI project ;-) I know... We dogs hang around in all the different projects :) story). But trusting them doesn't need to mean that I'm going to jump of a cliff if they all do it, right? Right but it should be up to ya'll tomcatters to work out your standards amonst yerselves. Thats my only issue. Nope, because if I vote a committer in, I give him access to the Tomcat CVS repo, but I also entitle him to vote for the friggin' next PMC, and _YOU_ my friend, might not like my choice, right? The only information I have to vote +1 for this guy on MY project (tomcat) are a handful of email, and 3 weeks of history... I'm sorry, but I need to know someone before I can honestly say he's my buddy and I want to have him on my project If I were a tomcat committer I'd vote with you, but I rarely understand those Tomcat guys. Who DOES understand those Tomcat guys anyhow ;-). Certainly I don't ! :) And at large, it entitles you to have an @apache.org email address, to have access to our live servers, entitles you to be a part of the whole Apache family... you're point being? My point being that there's something behind having a name on the CVS avail file and an entry in /etc/passwd... :) But its up to the Tomcat community. The system works. No action is needed aside from that you've taken on the Tomcat list. Maybe for _you_, not for _me_... Being utterly stupid, completely irresponsible, and definitely insecure, I need other people comments, not on the particular issue of _the_guy_ in se, but on a more general issue on _why_ I voted that way. Ok, I should have voted -1 and then raised this all stuff in a _different_ email to general, OK OK, I foobared up once more, but you guys should be used to it by now... And I don't disagree with you. Its a states rights argument. You're questioning whether this community has the right to bring someone into the inner circle of the community. I say its their right. Yes it affects us all, but it is their right as a project to do so. Indeed... It is. I'm not arguing with that. I wouldn't do it for POI (for example), I trust your judgment, as a committer, that you will only let other good people in our community... As you trust me to bring only good people in the community, right? Right, my question is now why this is being brought to general @ jakarta and cross posted when its an internal issue to Tomcat. If we need a webpage to give guidence to the communities as to how and when to make someone a committer, well thats
Re: Criteria for commit access
Just one question, have you ever voted -1 on a committer? (and not just to you, but to every committer on this list). I've abstained, informally (off-list, that is) from voting, once. The guy in question had been active in a part of our project but I hadn't been following on that at all, so I felt incapable to judge. (ducks in fear of flaming swords coming down from the sky at blazing speed to strike him dead for committing (pun intended) this terrible sin) - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
Andy, not everyone grew up in Texas! :) I don't eat beef anymore (you know mad-cow disease and smallpox in the UK) Dern Europeans ain' speaking proper 'merican. Anyhow, just wait around and you'll catch me speaking Spanish too. I do not think the PMC should intervene just because the others disagree. This looks like an issue that is totally restricted to the Tomcat community. I don't understand the issue. The system is working. . .why raise a fuss elsewhere. You have an issue with the standards and you've vetoed the committership. This seems to me to be exactly what is supposed to happen... Because it is the very first time that someone -1s a new committer. I've never seen it happening, and I want more feedback from all the different possible sources ever... I CCed members because I esteem the judgement and knowledge of every single one of them and I had _very_ good feedback from them, I CCed PMC because I'm utterly stupid and still I don't remember to use general@ for trivial/crossproject matters (and I welcome Costin's correction in forwarding it to the appropriate list)... From general@ I want feedback as well, we're talking about it, several people responded, so I'm trying to challenge my own -1 with comments not only from the restricted group of Tomcat... Okay...thats fine. This Andy alarm was triggered because I thought you were looking for creating a more top down organization. So the system works! Good news! I still don't follow You veto'd. That means the system work. The standard is upheld. Right but it should be up to ya'll tomcatters to work out your standards amonst yerselves. Thats my only issue. Nope, because if I vote a committer in, I give him access to the Tomcat CVS repo, but I also entitle him to vote for the friggin' next PMC, and _YOU_ my friend, might not like my choice, right? Just like if we were citizens of the same country and you brought a child into the world. That doesn't mean I should have a say in the matter. As I understand it, the PMC is here to serve the needs of the different communities, not vice versa. So Its perfectly logical for the Tomcat folks to decide making someone a committer is in their best interests and then by extension granting that person those rights to vote their individiual interests as a way of further contributing to Tomcat. Philisopically this is federalism, or more closely confederalism. But its up to the Tomcat community. The system works. No action is needed aside from that you've taken on the Tomcat list. Maybe for _you_, not for _me_... Being utterly stupid, completely irresponsible, and definitely insecure, I need other people comments, not on the particular issue of _the_guy_ in se, but on a more general issue on _why_ I voted that way. My opinion (just my 2c that SHOULD not count for any more than Pier is interested) -- the system works. If you felt uncomforable with this person being a commiter, you should have voted -1. Ok, I should have voted -1 and then raised this all stuff in a _different_ email to general, OK OK, I foobared up once more, but you guys should be used to it by now... ;-) Do you realize that when you give access to someone in _your_ community, you're opening a backdoor that entitles that person _ALSO_ to other privileges and that your decision will or could, at the end, affect other people that you don't even know? Yes, again, back to the you're right to breed example... Jakarta is a community of communities. The power flows bottom up. Not top down. (in general, according to my limited viewpoint of the world) Worthless on the matter of making me change my vote FOR THAT PERSON SPECIFICALLY, maybe. Worthless to the idea of a better structured and integrated Jakarta-as-a-whole community? Hardly. I am against a top-down decision process in bringing in new committers. There is such a process for bringing in new projects, and thats probably the right thing to do. But I'm in no position to know what a person has done for Tomcat and whether he should get a vote in Tomcat. As for the fact that that gives him some limited status and control in the project as a whole, you're looking at that wrong in my opinion. Its Tomcat's right to grant him that power. If Tomcat is misusing that right, its up to you as a Tomcat committer with a binding vote to stop them. I think you did the right thing. No, you voted -1. They have a right to try and convince you to change you vote, but the issue is decided. The issue is not decided until the vote ends, and that means 3 days past the request for vote... And you've voted -1. They should try to convince you otherwise, but *shrug*. Just one question, have you ever voted -1 on a committer? (and not just to you, but to every committer on this list). I'm a sneaky b*stard. I never propose anyone on list
Re: Criteria for commit access
Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy, not everyone grew up in Texas! :) I don't eat beef anymore (you know mad-cow disease and smallpox in the UK) Dern Europeans ain' speaking proper 'merican. Anyhow, just wait around and you'll catch me speaking Spanish too. No estas problema, chico! :) From general@ I want feedback as well, we're talking about it, several people responded, so I'm trying to challenge my own -1 with comments not only from the restricted group of Tomcat... Okay...thats fine. This Andy alarm was triggered because I thought you were looking for creating a more top down organization. Nope, I'm actually trying to figure out how commit access should be given, but that will come later in another email... Do you realize that when you give access to someone in _your_ community, you're opening a backdoor that entitles that person _ALSO_ to other privileges and that your decision will or could, at the end, affect other people that you don't even know? Yes, again, back to the you're right to breed example... Jakarta is a community of communities. The power flows bottom up. Not top down. (in general, according to my limited viewpoint of the world) Correct, indeed, that's why we elect people from the bottom to the top, for example, to sit on the PMC, or (since I just closed the vote right now) on the ASF board... Worthless on the matter of making me change my vote FOR THAT PERSON SPECIFICALLY, maybe. Worthless to the idea of a better structured and integrated Jakarta-as-a-whole community? Hardly. I am against a top-down decision process in bringing in new committers. +1... There is such a process for bringing in new projects, and thats probably the right thing to do. Yes, because our infrastructure is limited, and our scope is limited, we're not SourceForge, right? But I'm in no position to know what a person has done for Tomcat and whether he should get a vote in Tomcat. As I'm not in that position for POI... As for the fact that that gives him some limited status and control in the project as a whole, you're looking at that wrong in my opinion. Its Tomcat's right to grant him that power. If Tomcat is misusing that right, its up to you as a Tomcat committer with a binding vote to stop them. I think you did the right thing. But there might be cases in which we _want_ that to happen (I'll detail in a further email I'm working on). Just one question, have you ever voted -1 on a committer? (and not just to you, but to every committer on this list). I'm a sneaky b*stard. I never propose anyone on list until I ask them offlist if he wants to be a committer. I apply the most patches and so I generally propose most of the committers (based on how bad you've inundated me with patches, I consider making you a committer a punishment for making me do too much work :-p). I have told people no you can't be a committer or you can ask but I'll vote -1 before, but thats as far as it went. That's good, you do most of the work, you _know_ the person you're dealing with, you can propose him as a committer or not... You know what's going on... Frankly in my case I didn't... I have been tempted once, there was one person who I thought really should be made a committer, but I chose to abstain from the vote because I was not prepared to air out the reasons why. That's what happened last week with another committer vote on tomcat-dev (same story), I didn't vote... If I felt someone was being made a committer too quickly I certainly would do the same as you and -1 them. So you (at the end) agree :) Good! :) (And given me some valuable point for the next step)... Pier -- [Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion of different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. [Jamie Zawinski - DNA Lounge - San Francisco] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: Right but it should be up to ya'll tomcatters to work out your standards amonst yerselves. Thats my only issue. Nope, because if I vote a committer in, I give him access to the Tomcat CVS repo, but I also entitle him to vote for the friggin' next PMC, and _YOU_ my friend, might not like my choice, right? I think in much simpler terms - if someone writes code and does work that is important for a project, he deserves to have the same rights as all other people who write code and do work. Our goal is to get people involved and to get them to spend their free time and weekends helping us make the best container. If someone shows the potential of making tomcat better, I would vote for him, even if I don't agree with his 'political' choices. If one quarter of the new commiters make 1/2 the contributions that people like Sam Ruby did - I'm quite happy. If this ( jakarta or tomcat ) into a elitist group that believes it is better than the rest of the world - I would rather spend my time contributing to sourceforge projects. But arguing that someone shouldn't be a commiter because he may elect someone we don't like in a PMC or because we don't like the portion of the code he is interested in - that's unfair and wrong ( IMHO ). Beeing a tomcat ( or jakarta ) developer is not easy. You have to spend your time doing work and getting flames in return. You don't own the code you write. Up until recently we couldn't even vote for the PMC, and have little influence over the ASF decisions ( who is the owner of the code we write ). Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
Costin Manolache wrote: If one quarter of the new commiters make 1/2 the contributions that people like Sam Ruby did - I'm quite happy. As Mark Twain once said The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
On 5/24/02 5:28 PM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: If one quarter of the new commiters make 1/2 the contributions that people like Sam Ruby did - I'm quite happy. As Mark Twain once said The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. But he only said it once. Let us keep the legend alive! :) -- Geir Magnusson Jr. Research Development, Adeptra Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-203-247-1713 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Sam Ruby wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: If one quarter of the new commiters make 1/2 the contributions that people like Sam Ruby did - I'm quite happy. As Mark Twain once said The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Sorry for picking your name as an example tomcat commiter - you are just the most known among us. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
Costin Manolache wrote: If one quarter of the new commiters make 1/2 the contributions that people like Sam Ruby did - I'm quite happy. As Mark Twain once said The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Sorry for picking your name as an example tomcat commiter - you are just the most known among us. You hadn't qualified your statement to Tomcat, and I was just teasing about your use of past tense. ;-) Overall, my feelings on the subject are: * Deciding when to convert a developer into a commiter is a balance that each project/subproject will need to determine for itself. * My bias (like yours) is towards giving people the benefit of the doubt. * Perhaps a more fruitful topic for us to explore is when to retire committer status due to inactivity. Pier is one of the few to do this explicitly. I have done it a bit more implicitly - including submitting patches to projects that I am officially a committer to. - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
* Perhaps a more fruitful topic for us to explore is when to retire committer status due to inactivity. Pier is one of the few to do this explicitly. I have done it a bit more implicitly - including submitting patches to projects that I am officially a committer to. yes. I recommend whatever the general guideline be that it recognize historic contributions. Something like Honored fellow so that the person is still on the contributers page but listed as inactive without any insulting connotation. - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.superlinksoftware.com - software solutions for business http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document in Java http://krysalis.sourceforge.net/centipede - the best build/project structure a guy/gal could have! - Make Ant simple on complex Projects! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Sam Ruby wrote: You hadn't qualified your statement to Tomcat, and I was just teasing about your use of past tense. ;-) All those foreigners who can't learn the proper English grammar and spelling :-) * Deciding when to convert a developer into a commiter is a balance that each project/subproject will need to determine for itself. +1. And I think tomcat policy so far has been quite effective in getting good people involved. I think of proposing someone as commiter more as a 'trap' for his free time and energy - it takes a lot of time to realize what's the real price of beeing a commiter ( and no, I'm not talking about the obligation to 'honour' the apache address or to vote in the PMC ) The question is how does a project 'determine' this policy - it takes only one commiter to put the bar high. * Perhaps a more fruitful topic for us to explore is when to retire committer status due to inactivity. Pier is one of the few to do this explicitly. I have done it a bit more implicitly - including submitting patches to projects that I am officially a committer to. I view this more in terms of code authorship. I think someone who writes a piece of code should have all rights as long as his code is in active use. Mozilla does a good thing keeping track of the authors, and most projects ( linux for example ) have the copyright assigned to the author. We may temporarily suspend (unix) accounts without activity, for security reasons - but I think past commiters should be able to 'reinstate' themself with minimal effort, at least as long as their name is listed in the 'author' tags. It would be a good idea to keep a list of 'active' commiters on a project ( or by release ), like commons is doing. For example the list of people who voted +1 on a release ( i.e. they are willing to do support, etc ) could be maintained with each release, and be the 'active commiters' list for that code. But I would strongly opose removing names from the list of commiters - even for the reason that they are part of the 'history'. ( this has nothing to do with the unix account - I'm talking about the pages that list the commiters ) Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
BTW, one idea ( not mine ) would be to have a separate and private list for each project with _only_ the comitters. The proposals for new commiters should be done on that list, not on the public list. I don't know what Dan feels about this whole topic, but I wouldn't take it very well. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
At 18:31 24.05.2002 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: * Perhaps a more fruitful topic for us to explore is when to retire committer status due to inactivity. Pier is one of the few to do this explicitly. I have done it a bit more implicitly - including submitting patches to projects that I am officially a committer to. I find that submitting a patch and let someone else apply it to projects where you are active (and a committer) has several advantages. It says: hey look what I have created. What do you think? Submitting a patch is more likely to elicit active comments. It is also a sign of respect. You know you can do it. The other developers know you can do it; but by not doing it you encourage the sense ownership of another developer (the one who will apply the patch) for that part of the code where the patch will go. Obviously, this sort of dancing becomes unnecessary when you have a close and trusting relationship with the other developer(s) although establishing trust takes time. It does not happen overnight. - Sam Ruby -- Ceki ps: By the way, the idea of submitting a patch as a committer is not mine. It's yours (Sam's). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Overall, my feelings on the subject are: * Deciding when to convert a developer into a commiter is a balance that each project/subproject will need to determine for itself. My feeling as well... The subject of my discussion was to get somewhere else, but apparently, nobody got it :) I'm cryptic as usual :) :) :) * My bias (like yours) is towards giving people the benefit of the doubt. Sure, my -1 forced Dan to talk to me, and he seems to be a nice guy. But AFAICS he doesn't want to get involved with the whole Jakarta politics just right now (I might be very wrong on this, he still didn't reply to my direct question) * Perhaps a more fruitful topic for us to explore is More fruitful has a very negative connotation, since you didn't even know where I was going to end to :) when to retire committer status due to inactivity. That was next on my agenda :) I'm preparing the list of the inactives as I promised you! :) Pier is one of the few to do this explicitly. I've been around long enough to not care about flames anymore... If I have to say something, I do it. I have no problems with everyone thinking of me as a complete idiot, I'm used to it, because I'm the first one to think that. I have done it a bit more implicitly - including submitting patches to projects that I am officially a committer to. :) I've removed myself from the committers list on several projects without saying a word... I must be masochist! :) Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Perhaps a more fruitful topic for us to explore is when to retire committer status due to inactivity. Pier is one of the few to do this explicitly. I have done it a bit more implicitly - including submitting patches to projects that I am officially a committer to. yes. I recommend whatever the general guideline be that it recognize historic contributions. Something like Honored fellow so that the person is still on the contributers page but listed as inactive without any insulting connotation. Members have the concept of being emeritus (emeriti, my Latin's getting so bad). The idea that any emeritus could get back to full status whenever he wants. The only thing is how we want to decide when someone becomes an emeritus... Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
The site docs say it can happen after 6 months of inactivity. Though I can't seem to find the location atm. My question is how does it happen? john mcnally On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 16:39, Pier Fumagalli wrote: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Perhaps a more fruitful topic for us to explore is when to retire committer status due to inactivity. Pier is one of the few to do this explicitly. I have done it a bit more implicitly - including submitting patches to projects that I am officially a committer to. yes. I recommend whatever the general guideline be that it recognize historic contributions. Something like Honored fellow so that the person is still on the contributers page but listed as inactive without any insulting connotation. Members have the concept of being emeritus (emeriti, my Latin's getting so bad). The idea that any emeritus could get back to full status whenever he wants. The only thing is how we want to decide when someone becomes an emeritus... Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 17:06, John McNally wrote: The site docs say it can happen after 6 months of inactivity. Though I can't seem to find the location atm. http://jakarta.apache.org/site/roles.html My question is how does it happen? john mcnally -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for commit access
In truthit doesn't. On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 20:18, John McNally wrote: On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 17:06, John McNally wrote: The site docs say it can happen after 6 months of inactivity. Though I can't seem to find the location atm. http://jakarta.apache.org/site/roles.html My question is how does it happen? john mcnally -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.superlinksoftware.com - software solutions for business http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document in Java http://krysalis.sourceforge.net/centipede - the best build/project structure a guy/gal could have! - Make Ant simple on complex Projects! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
