incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Little <>
Subject Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Date Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:28:00 GMT
I would agree with the notion of a low bar to membership for  
incubators. I run the JBossESB effort which has really only been  
going since March and we've taken a similar approach. The community  
has grown immensely since then, with a dozen serious committers from  
a range of companies. Give people a chance and they'll help. Add  
barriers to entry and they'll go elsewhere.


On 29 Sep 2006, at 14:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
> and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
> to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
> podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
> PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
> increasing the community.
> I would recommend that anyone who does not have
> commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
> the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
> which serve to indicate the work they've done.
> As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
> have been going on, let me also state that it is
> really against the ASF to make any sort of development
> decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
> PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
> and any leaking of that information is considered
> a VERY bad thing to do.
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator  
>> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and  
>> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our  
>> names were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working  
>> on Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential  
>> collaboration possibilities with Celtixfire.
>> At the formation of the project all members of the group were  
>> asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.  
>> However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't  
>> turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of  
>> September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our  
>> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several follow  
>> up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer for the  
>> delay provided.
>> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to  
>> limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed  
>> individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal  
>> procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false  
>> assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission, we  
>> had already gone through the process of arguing who should, or  
>> should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with a  
>> different result (and one which appears to have been conducted  
>> behind closed doors) is frustrating.
>> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project  
>> was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation  
>> of the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was no  
>> intention of adding us (and perhaps others we don't know about) as  
>> initial commiters, why did the project submitter include us? On  
>> what basis where these accounts not set up? Is random denial of  
>> initial commiters typical?
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>> --
>> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of  
>> Redhat).
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message