[gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 85: Policy regarding substantial code additions

[Even Rouault]

Mathias,
>
> Hi Even, hi everyone,
>
> As we (SAP) are probably one of the triggers for formalizing this 
> policy, let me take a first stab from the perspective of a new 
> contributor trying to make a substantial contribution:
>
(My personal position is that a first contribution that is a substantial 
one is probably not the best way to engage and socialize with a project. 
End of bracket)
>
>
>   * Having such a policy greatly increases transparency on what has to
>     be done to make a driver contribution. The outlined criteria
>     reduces the need for lengthy discussions.
>
>   * I do specifically like the idea of having a list of responsible
>     contacts. It makes it easier to track personas – even if people
>     change. Still, the list could be outdated at some point. Maybe a
>     regular check-in (via email, virtual meeting, etc.) would be
>     beneficial.
>
It is the responsibility of a maintainer listed the contacts that can no 
longer occupy this position to update the list: preferably with a 
replacement maintainer, or if not with an empty name.
>
>  *
>
>
>   * To me, the term “significant code addition” should be defined more
>     precisely. Not only in terms of quantity, but also complexity. New
>     drivers typically have a significant footprint in terms of code
>     quantity, but they are isolated. Whereas there may be other
>     contributions with less code, but spanning several software
>     components.
>
If you know how to define that more precisely, please propose. But this 
RFC is more about giving a general message, and as noted at the end the 
PSC is the ultimate adjudicator.
>
>   * At least for corporate contributors, the bullet point of
>     participating in the day-to-day activities is too vague to be
>     seriously accomplishable. While I do well understand, what the
>     goal of the statement is, I still think, the responsibilities have
>     to be defined (and quantified) more clearly as the current
>     description may be interpreted as a bottomless pit for development
>     resources.
>
I'm not sure how we can quantify, and I don't like the artificial 
division about "corporate contributors" vs "non-corporate contributors". 
Are non-corporate contributors expected to spend their nights & weekends 
doing all the boring & thankless tasks that corporate contributors don't 
"quantify" as being in their area of responsibility ? The message here 
is that the project can't work if people wear blinders and only care 
about the part that they contributed to without considering & investing 
in the project as a whole. Maintaining a project of this size is close 
to be a bottomless pit.

Even

-- 
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20220118/d5b1e645/attachment.html>