Re: [boost] [Guild] Getting volunteers' changes back to trunk

Subject: Re: [boost] [Guild] Getting volunteers' changes back to trunk
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-12 11:41:56

At Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:34:33 -0600,
Rene Rivera wrote:
> 
> On 11/12/2010 5:41 AM, Jim Bell wrote:
> > On 1:59 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> At Sat, 06 Nov 2010 08:55:31 -0500,
> >> Jim Bell wrote:
> >>
> >>    We'll need a
> >> list of libraries whose maintainers authorize such changes, and
> >> libraries whose maintainers want to control all changes themselves.
> >
> > Agreed. I envision active maintainers establishing rapport with guild
> > members whose work they liked.
> 
> I don't agree.. We keep promoting library authors to not be part of
> the Boost community this way. Library authors should accept that once
> their library is accepted other people in the community will help to
> maintain *all* of Boost not some sub-Boost. Otherwise we keep having
> the same problem of having libraries that are not maintained to users
> satisfaction because the owner is too busy. Once a Boost library is
> accepted it should become a shared responsibility of the community!

Wow.  I *think* I love that idea.

> >>> Should we look for a person or two from the volunteers for this
> >>> role?
> >>
> >> I don't think the volunteers themselves can be authorized to commit to
> >> trunk.  We need more trusted people to do that.
> >
> > I agree. One trusted person should sanity-check marked changes and
> > merge. (And revert!) And a single person would be good in terms of
> > getting to know guild members whose work needs closer scrutiny. (And
> > they could ask other guild members to help with that scrutiny.)
> >
> > But could this alone be a significant effort?
> 
> I disagree, the responsibility of getting verifying, applying, and
> merging should be shared. 

Agreed, but probably not solely among people considered to be (and who
consider themselves) apprentices.

> Again for the same reasons of Boost being a product of the
> community. I outlined some procedures for handling this, and
> allowing trust to build for people, including volunteers, doing this
> validation. But I guess no one liked my ideas, since no one
> responded. Oh, well.

I didn't see them.  Repost?

> > Should there be a guild mailing list?
> 
> Probably, just like we have a testing list for people volunteering
> testing resources. But, as you know, there must still be some fair
> amount of communications on the dev list. As that's what the core
> community will be paying attention to.

yup.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com