Re: commit access policies

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    I can trust someone to follow agreed rules and not to be malicious.
>    That's what it takes for Tier Two.  But that's a far cry from
>    trusting them to be technically competent, not make certain kinds
>    of mistakes, and the like.
>
> If a person cannot make a decision, they should ask.  That is the only
> way to learn in my book.  If they make a mistake, it is simply to fix
> it, the whole reason why you have version control systems after all.

You don't understand what Tier Two is for.  You are still mired in
thinking that it is a way to keep people out of Tier One.  It's not.
Tier Two is just a group of Tier Three people who we know aren't going
to be malicious or destructive, nothing more.

We could do development the way a wiki is run.  But while that's great
for some purposes, I'm not sure it's the most productive use of the
developers' time.  Wiki's are not so good for interacting pieces of
stuff; an example is wikispecies which has yet to reach convergence
about some basic issues, and which requires consistency across a broad
spectrum of pieces to really be what it could be.

I have nothing against wikis, and perhaps even wiki-ish development of
software would work.  But I don't want to try it here, with this
project.

> If the group is silent, then only a single person can declare how
> something should be done.  As was the case for GNU Mach.  Marcus
> wouldn't have said a word if I hadn't poked him on IRC, nor would
> you.

So you performed a service.  However, the manner in which you poked,
whether intentionally or not, hurt me.  

Thomas