I personally like the idea of giving committer right on request. I do not like the fact that is has to be earned...we are volunteers not workers !
However I fully understand PMCs that are concerned about uncontrolled commits, so I see the "right on request" go hand in hand with a way of "removing right". PMC should be able to, with reason and warning, to "ban" a committer, and that should be effective for all ASF. I also think that people with commit rights who are inactive for a longer period of time (I am not sure how long that should be, but no longer than a year) should automatically have revoked the right (with the option that they can request it again). ICLA is a must. I know from other projects (outside) ASF that they talk about committers and committer-interest, the latter group is controlled/reviewed by an old committer. With that, committers save time to commit patches, and new people feel welcome. but that is just my personal opion. Jan Iversen. On 5 January 2013 19:05, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > ICLAs are still an absolute requirement. So, imagine an Apache project with > a policy like: > > Commit rights are granted on request to people with an Apache ICLA on > file ... > > > > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > . > > . > > . > > > > > > The question at hand here is, 'is this really a good idea? Would > project > > > grow and thrive better if they set a lower bar to grant commit rights?' > > > > > > > How does the iCLA fit into any change? Personally I would not mind > > commit rights on request, but I still see the value for a project to > > have iCLA's on file for all those who have such rights. This is to > > protect our users. > > > > -Rob > > >
