On Saturday, 31. May 2008, Jakob Petsovits wrote: [snip]
But that is the core of the issue at hand here - we've got lots of CVS accounts, but we don't trust them a single bit. Instead of relying on trust and goodwill, we rely on technical measures to lock out potential helpers before they even get the chance to do something wrong. [snip]
Ok, I figured that people way smarter than me would have no problem demonstrating why we should not do it the way that I proposed. I can live with that :) Hope it was not a complete waste of your time, maybe someone else can find a way some time on how not to make mistrust the default. So yeah, I'm done with this again already :P Thanks for reading, Jakob P.S.: Views was probably the worst possible example, with a highly skilled *and* incredibly active maintainer making random commit access not only unnecessary but (as rightly stated) also counter-productive. A better example would have been more low-profile stuff like http://drupal.org/project/comment_cck, where the maintainer hasn't committed or posted to the issue queue for half a year, with a couple of patches including a Drupal 6 port being left out in the queue. That's the classical example of a project that should be lead by the community instead of a single maintainer.