From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35667) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1imroC-0000bh-Ja for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 23:10:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imroA-0001Sg-Jc for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 23:10:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60197) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imroA-0001SO-GN for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 23:10:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1imroA-0002Dd-BF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 23:10:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#38846] [PATCH 4/4] DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit access. Resent-Message-ID: From: Brett Gilio References: <20200101163446.5132-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20200101163446.5132-4-ludo@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 22:09:47 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20200101163446.5132-4-ludo@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Cour\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?t\=C3\=A8s\=22's\?\= message of "Wed, 1 Jan 2020 17:34:46 +0100") Message-ID: <87blrmjy7o.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-maintainers@gnu.org, 38846@debbugs.gnu.org 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. Wdyt? --=20 Brett M. Gilio GNU Guix, Contributor | GNU Project, Webmaster [DFC0 C7F7 9EE6 0CA7 AE55 5E19 6722 43C4 A03F 0EEE]