+1 Although an individual taking the RTC route is a bit different than there being a local policy that requires it. This has been addressed subsequently on this thread, but I am struck by Bertrand's simple statement. It inspired a different way of looking at RTC vs CTR.
It is a community strength, and even related to having committer karma at all, that folks are considered trustworthy to make changes (C[TR]) in repositories where they are competent and careful, and that they are trusted to know the difference where RTC is called for when they are not so confident and consider determination/review as a way of avoiding unintended consequences. There is also the safeguard that review is always possible and, indeed, we are presumably talking about the one place where vetos count. That does not mean mistakes do not happen, that no one is ever hasty, bull-headed, etc., etc. We're all human and these projects are human enterprises. The idea is that mutual trust based on a shared commitment prevails as a guiding force through the hurly-burly of all that. And out of that, a trustworthy (not some abstractly perfect) outcome is achieved. By trustworthy, to be clear, I mean that the result shows care for the ultimate recipients of the work and when there are breakdowns, they are resolved in a manner that demonstrates that care. It seems then, that having some sort of blanket policy one way or the other is about some magical view of a perfection where there is none to be found, only folks stumbling along doing their best. We want to honor that, and the guiding principle is that community is where it arises. - Dennis PS: From another context, but one that might be useful here: To be trustworthy, one must first be willing to trust. (From this, you could surmise why I personally find ALv2 preferable to GPL in the work that I do and why I find ASF's approach to serving the public good so harmonious.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 23:53 > To: Incubator General <general@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...) > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > ...RTC can be framed as "I don't trust you to do things right"... > > Or also "I don't trust myself 100% to do things right here and would > like systematic reviews of my commits". > > Like all sharp tools I think RTC has its place, but shouldn't be > abused. It's perfectly possible to have some parts of a project's code > under RTC and others under CTR. > > -Bertrand > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
