Martin v. Loewis wrote:
Gustavo Niemeyer writes:
My feeling is that the Python development is currently overly centralized, and that you might be suffering from that now, by being unable to handover some of your tasks to someone else.
I agree with your first observation, but disagree with the second: there are plenty of tasks that could be handed over. There are just no volunteers to perform these tasks.
There aren't enough volunteers willing to dedicate a lot of time, but I bet there's a large group of people like me who do things like submitting an occasional patch of bug report. My interpretation of the problem Gustavo is pointing out is that the larger group really ins't able to help, because everything we do places an additional burden on the core developers. If more of these people were able to contribute directly (i.e. via CVS commit access), you'd get a double benefit, since they'd get their contributions in faster and it would help free up the core developers from a lot of busy work. I think people with CVS access would also be a lot more motivated to contribute, since it removes the uncertaintly about whether their work will go into the release or just be wasted. My solution is: 1. Post Martin's guidelines on how to help very prominently. 2. Offer CVS access to developers who submit useful patches. 3. Publicize #2 to promote more patches from people wanting to prove themselves. I'm proposing to set the bar pretty low for CVS access, but I think this is a good strategy overall. As long as people are aware of the standards they're expected to hold up and the trust they're being given, most of them will do their best not to abuse it. The cost of granting commit access to the wrong person is fairly low (just back out their changes and revoke their access), but granting access to the right person could pay off for many years. Ok, I'll quit trying to sound so important now :) jw