On 09/09/2011 04:09 PM, Perry Myers wrote:
On 09/09/2011 04:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/09/2011 03:03 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>> On 09/09/2011 04:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd prefer something like, communities with greater than 3 (or maybe
>>> 10?) maintainers can creator their own voting procedures.
>>
>> that is what apache does btw and is fine by me. the goal here is to get
>> a broad maintainer set and help mew projects grow. once a project has a
>> good culture, they can evolve it themselves.
>
> Okay, that sounds good. Perhaps we should try to work language like
> this into more of these docs? Basically, three tiers of projects:
>
> Tier 0; x< 3 maintainers, oVirt board has ability to make decisions
> on behalf of the project.
>
> Tier 1; 3<= x< 10 maintainers, project is autonomous, but must use
> oVirt recommended voting procedures and maintainership model.
>
> Tier 2; x>= 10 maintainers, project is autonomous and writes its own
> governance document. Perhaps the document should be voted on by the
> oVirt board?
>
> I think that creates a nice incubator model where oVirt helps a project
> grow and gets out of the way once it reaches critical mass.
>
> Can anyone give me an idea of where the initial set of seed projects
> will fit? How many maintainers is oVirt Server likely to have? (I
> assume that's the biggest of the seed projects).
Do we define a maintainer as anyone with commit access to the main
upstream repo?
If so, oVirt Node project has 3 maintainers presently (not counting
myself, and I don't since I don't code anymore...)
I think anyone with commit access who can commit other people's patches?
I think that fits the categories quite well too. ovirt-node is large
enough that it should be autonomous. I think the overall goal is to
make sure that projects move from Tier 0 -> Tier 1 over time but once at
Tier 1, I'm sure certain projects can last forever at that size.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Perry