forgot the reply-all ;) On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 01:53, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:30:27AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Morgan Delagrange wrote: > >... > > > and I think separating karma and > > > voting rights is unproductive. > > > > I agree. Karma and voting rights should always cover the same territory. > > Note that "karma" might be enforced via the 'avail' file, or it might simply > be "we're adults here and know which codebases we have commit access to".
In j-c it works like this : if you fix something in a project you never fixed something in, add yourself to the status file and commit the fix. (that's what the charter says). In real life it will be put up for discussion first and then committed. Allowing votes from people who are not directly involved has (in my opinion) just benefits. It makes a community, since it can trigger you to have a deeper look into the component and possibly provide extra input. I suggest not "closing" a new community (apache-commons) in front, since it is working in real life and the process doesn't need fixing (this saying, assuming the apache-commons will be (partly) modeled after j-c > > Personally, I think it will be a pain to manage the avail file in too much > detail, so punting would be nice, and just rely on people being adults. (and > the fact that we have version control and can revert commits that were > accidentally out of bounds) Agreed indeed ;) (I should read everything before I type.. At least you have some feedback of how I experience the j-c as a committer ;) Mvgr, Martin
