On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:05:27AM +0100, Jaromír Coufal wrote: > > On 9.1.2013 20:54, Hugh Brock wrote: > >[snip] > > > >For what it's worth, I've asked about the OpenStack model for this, and > >it is: > > > >* Each project has a group of core contributors who have commit rights > > for that project. Core contributors can vote to accept other folks as > > core. > > > >* Each project has a yearly vote among the core contributors to choose a > > project technical lead for the project. > > > >Fairly simple. In our case of course everyone on a project is core, > >we're not so big that we have people sending patches who don't have > >commit rights. Hopefully that will happen at some point. > > > >Thoughts on this? > > > >--Hugh > > > Sounds good, when we have more contributors. In this particular > moment I don't think, that it is applicable in our team. I think that > system of reviews, which we currently have, works well for now. Once > we grow and have more contributors, the "OpenStack approach" might > help.
I agree with Jarda here; I don't think this is appropriate for us right now. I also think it's more about who can commit code than on how decisions are made or how consensus is reached. Ignoring lkml antics, I don't think the job of a "core" with commit rights is to make decisions independently. I think their responsibility is to make sure that patches meet the community standards and that there's a consensus that the patch should be merged. -- Matt
