Re: Contributor listing policy
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Contributor listing policy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47D56CB4.9090208@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Contributor listing policy (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Contributor listing policy
Re: Contributor listing policy |
Список | pgsql-www |
Magnus, > It was also presented as the solution that -core agreed on. I'm sure that > if Josh actually lied about that, someone would've spoken up quite fast. > But I strongly doubt that Josh would claim to present the "view of the core > team" if the discussion hadn't taken place. Heh. As if I could get away with that -- I'd have until list lag caught up to get blasted. I guess one of the questions here is "who owns the contributor listings?". It's not a question we've ever dealt with specifically before, and it's unclear on even what *mailing list* would be involved in discussing them. It seems like we'd need to involve half or more of the lists. For the last 3 years, nobody has discussed this because Robert just did it and submitted the list to Core, which approved it. Now Robert is tired of the work, and what was implicit needs to become explicit. The reason I'm putting forward that Core ought to be ultimately responsible is threefold: 1) Core is a central point of contact which is supposed to know what's going on in the various disconnected mailing lists, and as such is our only existing "central" coordinating group; 2) The seven Core team members place in the listings isn't going to change, and thus we can argue about who should be where without statutory personal bias; 3) Core does conventionally deal with other issues around contributor status, such as CVS access, release notes, and (in extreme cases) banning. Barring Core handling it, we'd have to form a separate committee, and somehow pick people who would be both representative and relatively impartial. That seems like it would increase the amount of work involved in getting the listings updated siginificantly, to the point where they might not get updated at all. Given that the only identified real problem (listings not being updated frequently enough) is not solved by forming a separate committee, why not take the easiest path, at least until another concrete problem is identified? --Josh Berkus
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: