Jason Dillon wrote:
Thanks Kevan for the summary, I think this really helps.
More comments below inline...
On Sep 6, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
1. Relaxed RTC
...
* 3 +1 votes from committers on the project (1 of these committers
needs to be a member of the PMC) with no outstanding -1 votes.
I don't think that we need a requirement of a PMC vote here. The PMC
can provide enough oversight w/o a required vote. IMO, a vote is a vote
is a vote... I don't put any weight over a committers vote to a PMC
members vote. I value them both equally. Forcing a PMC vote here is
artificial and promotes separatism rather than unity.
I'm fine with removing the PMC requirement.
3. CTR with documentation guidelines
Geronimo follows a Commit-Then-Review model. There should be an
emphasis of community communication. Community-based policing and
persuasion will be used to remedy any problem areas. Guidelines are
not strict dogma -- common sense should prevail. Community
communication is the key, not a process. General guidelines are:
* Non-trivial changes (and certainly potentially controversial
changes) should be announced on the dev list. This announcement should
be well in advance of the change being committed. The community should
be given the opportunity to understand and discuss the proposal.
* Concurrent with the commit of a significant change, the committer
should document the change on the dev list. You should describe what
you are doing, describe why you are doing it, and provide an overview
of how you implemented it.
This feels a whole lot like common-sense for how to participate on an
open-source project. In most cases, I think this is also the best model
to run under... though I do believe that RTC has some merit as well.
Common sense and decency is what I would like to see ;-)
If it was up to me (which it isn't, but here is my opinion anyways), I
I think everyone's input counts.
would use a hybrid model, which would default to CTR (with emphasis on
common sense and communication) and for non-trivial or potentially
controversial changes follow the RTC with Lazy Consensus as described in
#2 (with the addition of inclusion of development branches or patches,
depending on the complexity). I actually think that this is
common-sense too.
I concur.
But Jason... I think you are on crack... and I want to smoke some too!
Okay, you are on your own there... just make sure you clean your pipe,
cause their ain't nuthing worse than a dirty ole crack pipe. :-P
Your knowledge of controlled / illegal substances boggles my mind. I'm wondering if there aren't
dark secret times in your life where you secretly are in love with Windows as a primary OS ;-0
--jason
