From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43133) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1imySS-0001F6-1J for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 06:16:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imySQ-0008EG-QY for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 06:16:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60557) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imySQ-0008E8-NY for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 06:16:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1imySQ-0007yM-Ht for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 06:16:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#38846] [PATCH 4/4] DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit access. Resent-Message-ID: References: <20200101163446.5132-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20200101163446.5132-4-ludo@gnu.org> <87blrmjy7o.fsf@gnu.org> From: Ricardo Wurmus In-reply-to: <87blrmjy7o.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:15:38 +0100 Message-ID: <874kxe3y91.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Brett Gilio Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guix-maintainers@gnu.org, 38846@debbugs.gnu.org Brett Gilio writes: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >> +Find three committers who would vouch for you, emailing a signed >> +statement to @email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org} (a private alias for the >> +collective of maintainers). You can view the list of committers at >> +@url{https://savannah.gnu.org/project/memberlist.php?group=3Dguix}. >> + >> +Committers are expected to have had some interactions with you as a >> +contributor and to be able to judge whether you are sufficiently >> +familiar with the project's practices. It is @emph{not} a judgment on >> +the quality of your work, so a refusal should rather be interpreted as >> +``let's try again later''. > > Maybe it is superfluous, because maintainers have the final say > anyways. But I think getting vouching approval by three committers and > one maintainer would be a fine idea. One long term goal is to reduce the dictatorial powers of maintainers and shift more towards finding consensus or seeking consent. Maintainers can=E2=80=99t know every new contributor, but they probably know the committers who vouch for the new contributor. -- Ricardo