incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Date Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:47:23 GMT
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:

View raw message