From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48162) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1imz91-0008JP-Sf for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 07:00:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imz90-0001s7-Le for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 07:00:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60602) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imz90-0001ry-IB for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 07:00:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1imz90-0000fn-FP for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 07:00:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#38846] [PATCH 4/4] DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit access. Resent-Message-ID: From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20200101163446.5132-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20200101163446.5132-4-ludo@gnu.org> <87blrmjy7o.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:59:22 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87blrmjy7o.fsf@gnu.org> (Brett Gilio's message of "Wed, 01 Jan 2020 22:09:47 -0600") Message-ID: <87png2ul0l.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: Brett Gilio Cc: guix-maintainers@gnu.org, 38846@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Brett, Brett Gilio skribis: > 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. The way I see it, it=E2=80=99s more about notifying maintainers than it=E2= =80=99s about asking them for approval; they could refuse someone, but the idea is they=E2=80=99d usually do what other people agreed on. Cooptation may allow us to scale better: it=E2=80=99s easy for maintainers = to simply lose track of who has been working on what and who should be given commit access. Thanks for your feedback, Ludo=E2=80=99.