On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 13:57, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >... > On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for. > Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent > email at members@ that there was much more flexibility possible with > committer status than with releases -- that the iPMC could indeed make a > one-time, blanket, decision, that PPMC votes were sufficient for committer > status. To cite an example to support my position, I'm pretty sure that GSOC > students get commit privileges without formal PMC votes. > > However, if I am dense, and if the foundation requirements do require a real > PMC vote for committer access, then the idea of my first paragraph would > apply.
For reference, any Subversion PMC member can grant (limited) commit status to another individual. We believe that if somebody with long-term involvement in the project (on the PMC) feels that another can do some good work, then they are entitled to make that happen. The new committer can *only* commit into a specific area (like a branch, or a specific directory), so we aren't scared for the project. We can always revert the commits and/or remove commit rights. The commits get reviewed, so we don't feel there are issues around submarine code either. Getting onto the PMC itself is a full vote, however. And those account requests *do* have to come from me, as the VP of Subversion (a rule from root@, tho Joe has said he is relaxing that a bit as long as the private@ list is cc'd). But your point is true: committership is a local, PMC decision. They can apply easy or strict rules. The IPMC could certainly delegate these decisions to the PPMCs. Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
