incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Little <>
Subject Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:23:17 GMT

On 2 Oct 2006, at 16:31, Daniel Kulp wrote:

> On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
>> How could they contribute when they were not given access?
> The same way any non-commiter contributor contributes to a project:
> 1) JIRA - creating JIRA items, submitting patches, etc... I admit,  
> the CXF
> JIRA was not setup to allow patches to be attached for the first  
> couple
> weeks.   Once that was discovered, we did get it fixed as quickly  
> as possible
> and it's been ok for several weeks now.  (One note: I did send a  
> request [1]
> for JIRA ids to be added so I could create a master list for  
> infrastructure
> rather than bombard them with "one at a time" requests.  I didn't  
> get a
> response from everyone, although I don't know if Jason or the other  
> mentors
> did get a response.)
> 2) Dev lists - participate in discussions, start discussions with  
> new ideas,
> ask questions, etc...
> 3) Wiki - help out with the wiki if the wiki is publicly  
> editable.    If not,
> definitely try to document ideas and findings in some form or  
> another so it
> can be added to the wiki.
> All three of those are very valuable contributions to a project,  
> but they
> don't require commit access (other than maybe the wiki depending on  
> how
> that's setup).   All three are generally how someone earns commit  
> access.

Sure, but isn't that the process for if you join AFTER the project  
has started? If you're on the list of initial supporters/committers  
then it's a different policy I believe. It's certainly not the  
approach we were lead to believe when we were approach by IONA to  
support the formation of the group.

As I've said before, there are two aspects to this: the change of  
policy with regards to initial committers, and then defining who gets  
committer rights. I'm all for having an open discussion around  
changing the list of committers if it is deemed necessary by the  
group and we decide the initial list is not a good seed from which to  
work. But an open discussion was never had. The list of initial  
submitters/committers, who were consulted at the formation of the  
project, were not consulted subsequently and were presented with the  
results (no commit access) as a done deal. That is bad management in  
my opinion and irrespective of the fact that this is an open source  
project. It does not help build a community spirit. So let's just get  
this straight: how this has been (man)handled is probably the biggest  
issue I have with the whole situation.


> Enjoy!
> Dan
> [1]
> 200609.mbox/<>
>> These guys
>> have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to  
>> contribute, and
>> in some cases did not even receive a reply.
>> Eric
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kulp, John Daniel
>> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
>> To:
>> Cc: Justin Erenkrantz
>> Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
>> Justin,
>> On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>> We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire.  So far, we're  
>>> waiting
>> for
>>> an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place where
>> the
>>> Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved  
>>> parties
>>> believe they have been barred access to a project they felt they
>>> contributed to.
>> That's not it.   The issue is they have been barred access to a  
>> project
>> they
>> have only expressed interest in contributed to.   They have not yet
>> contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no  
>> communication on
>> the
>> dev list, etc...).   That is why the CXF mentors decided it was
>> in-appropriate to give them commit access.   There name was on the
>> initial
>> proposal, but after two months, there was still no contributions.   
>> Those
>> individuals are basically stating that since there name was on the
>> proposal,
>> that is enough to get the commit rights.
>> Basically, Jason and the other mentors thought the initial commiters
>> should
>> actually be those who contribute/commit stuff.   Those who don't meet
>> that
>> barrier haven't earned the commit rights, so why should they have  
>> commit
>> rights?
> -- 
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194   F:781-902-8001
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message