Re: bundlebuggy improvement

On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 09:57 +0100, Kinkie wrote:

> The idea is nice, but a bit dangerous IMO, as it lends itself to
> abuse. I second that we can try it out, and see how it works out.

I think it will work out well. And in any case there is a second level
human filter to make the actual commit.

> The point I don't understand then, is "what is -core?". I had been
> told that it is about project governance, but this is not really
> governance. So either -core is being overloaded with a second task, or
> it is not "just" about governance.

Today core is pretty much equal to committers, with some minor
exceptions.

Yes, the role of core is governance and management of the project. This
among other things involves keeping an eye on what is being merged and
vetoing things which doesn't make sense even if there is two other
developers who is very excited about it..

For bundlebuggy it's not a hard distinction. The separation of
meaningful and abuse veto votes is best dealt with at a human level by
social interaction. Hence "mainly reserved for squid-core". It's not
meaningful to define yet another strict group for this purpose.

The developer community around Squid is so small and with a pretty low
churn rate, so the rules needs to be as simple and open as possible. For
our project the less administration we need of bundlebuggy and the more
meaningful information it picks up the better.

Each time bundlebuggy misses a meaningful vote for whatever reason is a
major obstacle for the project. But it's only a minor annoyance (moscito
level) if someone on squid-dev tries to abuse the bundlebuggy system.
The main problem in such case is on squid-dev and the social interaction
needed to get that person to behave, not the traces left in bundlebuggy.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Tue Mar 18 2008 - 03:59:06 MDT