On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Daniel Walton wrote:
Oh, and 1 and 2 are probably somewhat conditional on:
0. What is the right^Wbest^Wleast worst model?
1. What should be the role/responsibilities of those with commit access?
- code review submitted patches to provide feedback
So, I "disagree" on this. I think it should be the whole community.
Everyone who has a stake in Quagga should try help to review.
Unless "maintainers" == "whole community", it can't scale otherwise.
- coordinate the release schedule
- help contributors of quagga coordinate on feature development to avoid
wasting cycles where two groups develop the same feature (ospf unnumbered
comes to mind)
Again, I think contributors and the wider community should feel
responsible for this, for scaling reasons.
- commit patches
- help build the community of users and developers
Ditto, wider involvement is better here too.
+1 to Martin's suggestion of letting the community decide (everyone gets a
vote, not just the maintainers). I do not think it needs to be super
formal. If someone thinks John/Jane Doe should be maintainer they send an
email to quagga-dev suggesting so and let the discussion go from there.
One of my concerns is to avoid the appearances of cliques, of especially
privileged groups (ironic perhaps coming from me, but hey). Some people
are shy, and aren't going to volunteer themselves. Some people are
actively turned off by the suggestion of cliques. Others outside
potentially may feel less inclined to participate (reviewing esp), because
it may seem it isn't their place.
I'd like to avoid that kind of thing....
regards,
--
Paul Jakma p...@jakma.org @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the
Titanic had paying customers.
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
