Yep, I thought so. So can we just remove this column, and have a single column then?
On 3 May 2013 19:38, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>wrote: > Noah I had already withdrawn auto-assignment in the same thread [1] with > following comment > > [Animesh>] +1, that is the reason Apache projects do not use > @author tag. I take back my original argument of auto-assigning based on > maintainers list. I did a search but did not find any community using > auto-assignment. The community argument wins. > > > Regarding removing the primary maintainers I agree that it can be dropped > and just call it maintainers or other inviting name. > > > [1] > http://markmail.org/message/udidz5fsgolng2xs?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Eincubator%2Ecloudstack-dev+auto+assignment+from > :"Animesh+Chaturvedi"&page=1 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Noah Slater [mailto:nsla...@apache.org] > > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:04 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers? > > > > Hi folks, > > > > While reading the meeting minutes, I found a link to: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Current+Maintai > > ners+Per+Component > > > > I feel concerned about the distinction between "primary maintainer" and > > "secondary maintainer". I believe this could discourage contribution. So > I > > thought I'd bring this up here so we can have a chat about it. > > > > If you had a group of maintainers, and it was obvious that this lis > could be one > > person, or several, then you would feel like you could join it if you > wanted to. > > It would feel like a team effort. A loose organisation of interested > parties. > > > > If there is a primary maintainer, then there is a feeling that this > piece of code > > is owned by somebody, and all you can do is perhaps assist that person. > Or > > perhaps you need to clear everything with that person first? How does it > > work? > > > > (This is the reason Apache projects do not have "lead developers" or > BFDLs. > > It discourages participation, and fosters a subservient permission > culture > > where we want a do-ocracy. It's also the reason we don't put author names > > in source code file. We never want someone to look at something, with an > > idea to fix or improve it and think, "oh, I better not, this isn't > mine.") > > > > I took a peek through my email for additional context, and I found: > > > > On 2 April 2013 23:45, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Can I propose that whoever wants to contribute in fixing defects for a > > > specific module add their name as maintainer of that module in > > > component maintainer list [1]? And we update how to contribute wiki on > > this process . > > > > > > During 4.1 there are a large number of major issues that as community > > > we ended up not addressing and given that number of unassigned issues > > > is high % should we consider auto-assign based on the maintainers > > > list? This is still not optimal since auto-assign will go to primary > > > maintainer and secondary maintainers still need to pull in defects > > > but is better than one person triaging defects. > > > > > > > I understand the motivation behind this, but I believe the outcome of > that > > thread was a consensus that auto-assignment does not happen in any other > > Apache projects, and should not happen here either. (So no need for this > > "primary maintainer" column.) > > > > -- > > NS > -- NS
