On Jul 12, 2005, at 10:52 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
1) -1. Guidelines are good, policy can be bad.
yes - guidelines captures what I meant. (I think of policy being the
same, but I can see how others don't...)
2a) IMHO...This will be hard to guage and form metrics. This is
subjective...since I think quality of participation plays to a certain
degree. Is this necessary? Can't we continue as we have (or has this
proven to be negative)?
I'd prefer to have a set of guidelines to make it clear to everyone
how we operate, and limit the chance that either we play favorites,
or are accused of doing so.
2b) +1 for "bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of
people"
because obviously it needs to be worked on by the authors to a certain
degree.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:42 PM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation
of Admin
Console- request for help))
Lets start a new thread tomorrow, finish discussion since I suspect
that all
that will say their peace have done so, and work out a vote?
I suspect we need to decide :
1) do we need to have any policy?
2) If so, decide the
a) general committer acceptance policy/guidelines to define some
sensible, fair, transparent metrics for accepting a committer
such as
- how long a person must commit patches
- how long participate on the mailing lists
b) general code acceptance policy (what we have been discussing
here)
where the options include
- bring into SVN, grant committer status to some # of people
- bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people
- bring into SVN, follow a) above for people
- none of the above
I think that "bring to incubator" is not in scope for this vote, as
it's a
tool we already have now - we can always do that and decide to
sponsor or
just participate, but at the end of that process, then the code
contribution
b) rules should apply.
geir
On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan
doesn't
like that, so...
Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
donated code are:
1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some
number of people) who have worked with the code before
2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to
some
number of people who have worked with the code before
3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and
potentially Geronimo people to form a new project team
It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of
these
is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
console vs the ORB.
Aaron
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
I don't know yet, myself. But certainly one cannot deny there are
more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
exactly the same deal as a web console.
-David
On 7/12/05, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both
cases, seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't
we?
-David
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
