On Wed, Jun 19, 2013, at 03:00 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hi all, > > from time to time I see in several projects the term "lead developer" > coming up. Sometimes incubating projects are confused also when to > grant committership. > > On the "lead developer": the ASF is a do-cracy, as we sometimes say. > The guy who "does things" is actually leading it. We do not have a > hierarchy, like a senior programmer who tells juniors what to do. The > whole project is "leading" the project. There are no real managers or > something like that. The term "lead" does let "non-leads" wait before > they are taking action. But in fact, everybody reading this list is > invited to take initiative and do things. Even non-committers can > "lead" something. > > When a non-committer has show commitment to a project, he gets > invited. Projects have different bars for inviting people. Personally > I always prefer to set a pretty low bar for earning committership. > Becoming a PMC member is a different thing. The bar should be higher. > For example, I think about a candidate if he is around for lets say 3 > months and contributes. Contributions can be answering user questions, > writing docs, cleaning up Jira, writing code and so on. Translators, > Community people, they all can become committer. > After three months it is clear if the person wants to stay around or not. > > The PMC should then open a [DISCUSS] thread on private and speaking > about the candidate. He should fit to the team. Toxic people can be > dangerous. > > You are project are free to choose when it is time to invite a person. > > In the current situation as Incubator podling I would even have a > lesser bar. In the situation of Wave - complex technology driven by > less people with less time - the bar should be very low. But this is > just my opinion. If you agree, work through the mailinglists and > nominate people. > > In general, it needs to be easy to contribute to Wave right now. > Complex review processes might stop people. I cite Upayavira in the > hope this thread is more visible: > > "= review then commit = > Mature communities usually follow this, when there's substantial risk in > making chances. Wave is way to young for this, IMO. > > = commit then review = > This is what I'm used to. Make a commit, and have other developers watch > the commit list. They can object on the dev list if they see something > they don't like, but the basic assumption is that, if you have commit > rights, we trust you." > > I am also a fan of ctr. I agree that Wave is ways to young for rtc. > Instead, code base must move on as quickly as possible. > > Please see this e-mail as suggestion, and not binding. > > I want to make sure: > > - non-committers know they are invited to perform actions > - committers know its ok to early invite new people to the project > (don't be shy) > - there is the option to commit-then-review - no need for a review > board in early stages, if you ask me
No need for reviewboard because that's what the commit mails are for. If you are a committer, make sure you are receiving them and do review them. Upayavira
