Re: [stp-dev] FW: [stp-newsgroup] IRC transcript from todays session

[Oisin Hurley <ohurley@xxxxxxxx>]

On 17 Feb 2006, at 14:21, Michael Norman wrote:
[deletia]
>  If we put in place any mechanism which allows committers from  
> different companies to "buddy up" to exercise control over code  
> committment  in a way that crosses (or defines subsets within) the  
> component or project heirarchy, then those individuals (and their  
> companies and the eclipse foundation) are potentially in breach of  
> anti-trust law.

Mike, it appears to me that any process that involves the possibility  
of a veto
in any form is a mechanism to potentially allow this 'buddy up'  
situation to happen,
so I'm not sure about the value of relating this point to the issue  
at hand, i.e.
code review.

You do raise an interesting point, however, in that the PMC has not  
settled on an
approach to commit decisions. Let us call upon the PMC to expedite  
this matter.

[deletia]
> Please also
> note every meeting (including discussions relating to code review)  
> needs to invite everyone within its scope (project, component,  
> etc.), to have an agenda posted in advance and to be minuted.

This does not provide for informal IM sessions or phone calls between
committers - is this an oversight or do you think that these forms
of communication have no place in the development process?

It appears that you have very strong concerns regarding transparency.  
Is this
something that you have aired with the PMC?

> In practice this stuff is best handled by committer vote at a  
> weekly component or project meeting under the retroactive commit  
> model.

So - I think this is a proposal that we adopt a retroactive commit  
model, as
described in the Eclipse top-level charter [0]. Would committers like  
to share
their experience with this and other commits at the IRC later today?

 rgds
  --oh

[0] http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/ 
Eclipse_Standard_TopLevel_Charter_v1.0.php