From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38121) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1imj79-00046F-FW for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 13:53:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imj78-0001w0-Ak for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 13:53:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59835) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imj78-0001vp-7V for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 13:53:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1imj78-0006AA-3R for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 13:53:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#38846] [PATCH 4/4] DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit access. Resent-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200101163446.5132-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20200101163446.5132-4-ludo@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20200101163446.5132-4-ludo@gnu.org> From: zimoun Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:51:50 +0100 Message-ID: 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: 38846@debbugs.gnu.org Hi, Nice proposal! On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 17:36, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > +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''. Cutting the hairs: on one hand "be able to judge" on practices and on the other hand "not a judgment on the quality". Even if I understand the idea behind (I guess), I do not find it well worded, if I might. I mean, I bet that "the quality of work" is a strong part when motivating the acceptance or the refusal, so yes it is "a judgment on the quality of your work" (but not only). Quality implies standards and practices; quality can be measured (more or less). From my understanding. Instead of 'quality', I propose 'value' which is more subjective. Well, my English is not very good... > +However, note that the project is working towards a more automated patch > +review and merging system, which, as a consequence, may lead us to have > +fewer people with commit access to the main repository. Stay tuned! > +@end quotation I find inappropriate the "Stay tuned!" in the manual. Cheers, simon