On 11/12/2010 1:11 PM, Jim Bell wrote:
On 1:59 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
I didn't see them. Repost?
Here's the post <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/10/172626.php>.
Thanks for reviving this. Sorry I glossed over it, too. Hope you don't mind if I respond generally.
There's no way I'd lead an effort like that (without hourly compensation). Not a chance. Tracking all that criteria across all those people sounds like a huge ongoing time commitment.
I think most of the work of keeping track of those counts can be done automatically by Trac.
I see the guild as a large pool of volunteers who we call on (for a little help from each). All help is geared toward streamlining things for those more committed.
Instead of all the criteria, I say throw it wide open. See who shows up, and what they accomplish. Let the cream rise to the top. (Again, you're not granting SVN access.) Having a big pool of volunteers you can call on to grind out the things many people can do seems very valuable.
The problem I see is that funneling through a small pipeline of maintainers that do the commits doesn't solve the problem of getting patches applied. It just prolongs the current bottlenecks to a different set of people. And I would hate to be one of those people given the likely huge workload in doing the commits. The most likely outcome of such a structure would be either: patches slowing to a crawl like now as maintainers don't have the time, or all patches get accepted as maintainers are overwhelmed and avoid doing full reviews. Neither of which is a desired outcome. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail