[sakai-pmc] grant Ben Holmes commit access to Signup tool

[Steve Swinsburg]

I agree with Aaron and think for project level commit access only,  pmc
discussion/approval for a project that is owned by a team is unnecessary.
This should be managed by the teams.

Who are we to decide, we don't know the person. What if we were to -1 it?
What would happen then? The team requests access and knows best.

A courtesy message to the pmc is all that is required here. Heads up, Ben
Holmes has access to signup.

For global commit privs this is a different story and goes through the pmc.

Cheers
Steve

sent from my mobile device
On 20/03/2014 4:43 AM, "Anthony Whyte" <arwhyte at umich.edu> wrote:

>
> I do think that in the short term / during transition - a courtesy check
> with the historical owners of a portion of the tree is 100% a good idea.
>
>
> Agreed.  But I'd like to see those interested in adding a committer submit
> their proposal on the PMC list rather than the infrastructure list or some
> other venue.  Earlier, I asked Neal to ping the PMC list regarding the Bob
> Long nomination and now he's followed that up with a Ben Holmes proposal so
> we've got an interim practice in place and working (needs publicizing on
> the dev list).
>
> When Neal (or others) draft these proposals they should make sure that
> those who support the proposal or are parties of interest (e.g., other
> committers) are identified and carbon copied.
>
>
> anthony whyte | its and mlibrary | university of michigan |
> arwhyte at umich.edu | 517-980-0228
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Charles Severance wrote:
>
> I agree with this approach - mirroring Apache.   And I also feel when we
> get to github the PMC will likely control the core commit list and there
> will be lots of rings.
>
> I do think that in the short term / during transition - a courtesy check
> with the historical owners of a portion of the tree is 100% a good idea.
>
> /Chuck
>
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu> wrote:
>
> I asked Neal to post new committer requests on the PMC list rather than on
> the infrastructure list in order to ensure that PMC members are both
> informed of such requests and are provided an option of raising an
> objection.
>
> I recommend that the PMC approve new committer requests, emulating Apache
> practice [1].  Whether or not recognizing a new committer requires a formal
> vote is worth discussing.  Personally, it think approval by lazy consensus
> sufficient--others may disagree (and should say so).
>
> As we move to Github a new definition of what constitutes a Sakai
> "committer" may well arise.  We may decide we need rather more contributors
> and fewer committers (i.e., those with a right to merge a pull request to
> our core repos).  Then again, we might simply grandfather in the current
> set of active committers.  Either way, the PMC, in my opinion, should
> decide such questions, either formally or via a lazy consensus.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Anth
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sakai-pmc mailing list
> sakai-pmc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-pmc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai-pmc/attachments/20140320/1cd0eb44/attachment.html