On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:10:17PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote: > During ApacheCon several httpd PMC members got together to discuss > current issues with the httpd project and to try to find better ways > to manage the project. One of the issues that was discussed heavily > was the current policy of RTC vs CTR. The feeling of some of the PMC > members is that the RTC policy as it is currently implemented on the > 2.0 branch, is causing unnecessary overhead which has resulted in the > slowdown of activity in the httpd project. One proposal that was made > would be to adopt a lazy consensus rule. Basically what this means is > that when a backport is proposed in the STATUS file, after a period of > time and if the proposal has not recieved any 0 or -1 votes, it would > automatically be approved for backport by lazy consensus. The purpose > for this proposal is to avoid stagnation of backport proposals in the > STATUS file simply due to the lack of votes.
Looking through the STATUS file, there doesn't actually appear to be much backport stagnation at all. The majority of stale backport proposals are stale because they are pending updates from the submitter after review by others, or they have been vetoed by a reviewer. Which is all healthy. So what's the evidence that there is a slowdown of activity caused by the backport policy? There have been four 2.0 releases already this year, including 179 individual user-visible changes listed in CHANGES according to grep. Sounds pretty healthy to me. Regards, joe
