On 5 January 2013 19:14, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
> > It seems that the people who show up at these projects are, almost
> > universally, responsible adults who are happy to comply.
>
> The ASF is always going to require an iCLA before gr
I personally like the idea of giving committer right on request. I do not
like the fact that is has to be earned...we are volunteers not workers !
However I fully understand PMCs that are concerned about uncontrolled
commits, so I see the "right on request" go hand in hand with a way of
"removing
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> It seems that the people who show up at these projects are, almost
> universally, responsible adults who are happy to comply.
The ASF is always going to require an iCLA before granting commit rights.
That on its own poses a significant bar
ICLAs are still an absolute requirement. So, imagine an Apache project with
a policy like:
Commit rights are granted on request to people with an Apache ICLA on
file ...
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>
> .
> .
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
.
.
.
>
> The question at hand here is, 'is this really a good idea? Would project
> grow and thrive better if they set a lower bar to grant commit rights?'
>
How does the iCLA fit into any change? Personally I would not mind
commit right
Over the last several weeks, there has been a length discussion amongst
Apache Foundation members about how the Foundation manages access to source
control, with a focus on Subversion.
Anyone can read http://www.apache.org/dev/open-access-svn.html to see a
summary of the central idea that started
