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

[Steve Swinsburg]

Isn't that what the CCLA and ICLAs are there to do though?

We should be reducing the burden on people that want to get things done. We
never had this requirement formalised before. Assuming I wasn't a veteran
committer and wanted to give commit privs to Profile2 to a guy that worked
for me, and the CLAs were in order, but it was blocked by the PMC, what
then? Are we ever going to block a request?

cheers,
Steve


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu> wrote:

> Granting committer access to our core repo has legal implications both for
> the project and the Foundation.  Ensuring the integrity of Apereo Sakai IP
> and the copyright and patent grants required of committers is sufficient
> justification for the PMC to exercise oversight of the process.  It falls
> squarely within the PMC's operational remit, irrespective of the scope of
> the request (global vs module).
>
> Leaving it to a 1 or 2 committers of a core module to decide on their own
> whether someone gets commit access to the Sakai core repo is not good
> practice.  Requests for core commit should involve a conversation with the
> PMC, acknowledging at the same time that the advocacy of veteran committers
> in support of a candidate will carry great weight, particularly so in cases
> where PMC members and other veteran committers "don't know the person."
>
>
> Anth
>
>
> anthony whyte | its and mlibrary | university of michigan |
> arwhyte at umich.edu | 517-980-0228
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:06 PM, Steve Swinsburg wrote:
>
> 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/a96b368b/attachment-0001.html