Upayavira wrote:
Generally Apache errs away from adding author tags to specific files, as
it tends towards 'code ownership', whereas all of the code is owned by
the community.
Attribution would be on a contributors page where committers and
substantial contributors can be listed. Also, if we have a status file
showing all changes we can have a due-to which shows who was responsible
for reporting/patching a specific bug.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Well, unless they're paid to be a tester, which is unlikely, they're
going to be a user/contributor/committer too.
My thought too.
The number of votes is set to three as a legal requirement. Three votes
constitutes a legally binding vote. We could have our requirement being
more though if we chose to.
I am fine with three, although I didn't know it was a legal requirement,
I just didn't want people to think that I pulled that number out of a
hat when creating the document. :-)
The 3/4 majority of the PPMC is interesting on two counts. Over time we
may have quiet members of the PMC. If we have over 1/4 are quiet, we end
up stuck.
True, but if we keep track of the votes we could lobby them. :-)
I can think of alternatives, such as 3/4 of issued votes after a certain
period of time...
Secondly, it implies that a -1 vote would not necessarily
prevent someone from being approved. I would rather that -1 vote be
dealt with and converted to a +1 (or at least +0) before the individual
was accepted.
I don't fully disagree, however, it seems like we would need some way to
break dead locks, no? What happens if there was just one person that was
-1 with everyone else +1 and he/she could not be convinced? Does the
group suffer?
Exceptions: To my mind, someone becoming a PMC member would also become
a committer at the same time, whether they actually do commit code or not.
That sounds reasonable to me.
-> richard
