| 1 |
Is it possible for projects to be nested, possibly within multiple |
| 2 |
super-projects? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Like, for example, a project dealing with a gnome chat client itself being |
| 5 |
members of both the gnome and the chat projects (hypothetically speaking)? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Maybe allow projects themselves to be members of other projects when needed. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
> > +1 in general, but I'm a little pensive about allowing non-devs to |
| 13 |
> > become official project members. Becoming a developer can be a |
| 14 |
> > grueling process, so I understand that some don't have the time or |
| 15 |
> > motivation, and still want to help out. So perhaps we could have |
| 16 |
> > contributors who wish to be project members pass our ebuild test, or |
| 17 |
> > some other litmus test to prove themselves, like a developer proxying |
| 18 |
> > them or something. Non-devs don't have direct push permissions to our |
| 19 |
> > main repo, so to my knowledge they'd still have to go through a dev. |
| 20 |
> > I'd just like to see some sort of documentation that sets expectations |
| 21 |
> > for non-dev project members so that a new contributor understands what |
| 22 |
> > would be expected. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I don't think that project member and commit access have to be |
| 25 |
> all-or-nothing together. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I'd suggest leaving it up to each team to decide who is allowed to be |
| 28 |
> a member if they're a non-dev, and the rest are just contributor. The |
| 29 |
> team can use whatever rules seems best. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Project members don't necessarily have formal powers, though typically |
| 32 |
> they participate in elections for the lead. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> As always, if there is trouble there is always comrel or council. I |
| 35 |
> think most teams should be able to figure out who should and shouldn't |
| 36 |
> be acknowledged as a member. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> But, there is still the GLEP 39 issue. I'd suggest the "contributor" |
| 39 |
> label for things like alias members until that is sorted out. There |
| 40 |
> isn't really much distinction in reality. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> -- |
| 43 |
> Rich |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
Archives