Ok, Mike told me that I was wrong to move this discussion to pmc@ and I should repost it at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, I dont want to rewarm this discussion, but when I reread my own post I think there are still valid points within. So - here we go: On 8/22/06, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > Moved to private@ ... > > > Also not really Apache, so why just > > discussed stuff during a beer, or more ... > I think the problem is, that our projects are getting more and more > complex. And its not just a "deprecate this or that component", its the > system as whole. > Now what we see - I cant speak for apache at all, but at least for a > project which itself is more a umbrella than a single focused project - > is, that people tend to concentrate on their work only. > As a developer in a mid range company like me I'd say this is perfectly > reasonable, we have so much work to do outside of apache that it is hard > to keep up to date with the project. Often more than not I have to spend > my after work time to do some apache work, enhancements of fixing bugs. > > I do not think that adding our names to the wiki page will increase the > number of private mails, but it will help us to be up to date with the > interests of a developer. Something we have in jakarta commons > (http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/CommonsPeople), there we are > also "responsible for the commons code", but it is also clear that e.g. > I am not the best commons-math developer due to the lack of knowledge in > this area. > That way we can react early if a component get dormant. If ComponentMaintainer sounds too harsh we could find another name for sure, maybe DeveloperInterests and have the same wordings like on the commons page. > > As I see currently, tomahawk is more a umbrella for different kind of > things than a component library only. Maybe splitting this project might > help so that we can decrease the scope of responsibility (SoR ;-) ) for > every single developer. Where and what to split can be discussed later. > > Also I do not like the wording "responsibility". Responsible against > whom, the other developers, the users, .... > Well, I take my responsibility seriously, but I don't wanted to be > forced to be responsible for anything - especially not for the whole > project. > Thats why I think a ComponentMaintainers page fits well. There we can > express what responsibility we would like to have currently. > But notice, I just mean the responsibility to fix bugs in a specific > area. > As a committer especially if you are on the pmc you are still > responsible for the way the project should go. This kind of > responsibility is often just participating in discussions or +1/-1 to a > vote. It's not that much work than setup a test environment, dig into > the code and fix a bug. > > For example: If there are some problems during the release process, the > release manager still should post to the dev mailing list, but maybe > then with "Hey Mario! In your ConversationTag ... bla bla bla". If I do > not answer within two or three (e.g. due to vacation) days its still > enough room for others to jump in and fix the problem. But ... If you > look at the release process in the past you'll see that the number of > developers helping out in such situations do not nearly match with the > number of committers we have. > > Another example: Fixing stuff in the "view serialization stuff" is hard. > This code is not that easy to read and follow. (This is no valuation of > the code itself) Now, if we see there is no maintainer for this piece of > code (no name in ComponentMaintainer) we have to find another one. This > can be done by posting to the dev list "volunteer needed for ....". > Hopefully another committer will jump up. > It is more than demotivating if you have problems (e.g. again during the > release process) and you try to find a developer to fix something but > none is responding. > > Just an idea, maybe unconventional, but hey ... > Said that, I do not consist on the existence of this wiki page. I just > thought it will be helpful for us, but if you don't like it, lets remove > the names :-) Ok, this already happened ;-) > > Ciao, > Mario > >
