On 28 Jul 2005, at 19:35, Robert Douglass wrote:
I would also not be displeased if Dries and Steven appointed a third committer in a non-democratic fashion. In other words, I trust them to make a good decision without getting involved in a community discussion. They probably already know who thinks the most like they do. It could be that a third core committer will ease the backlog enough. I'm sure that having more than three Gods in the Heavens would also start to strain the decision process and make coordination harder. Until we do something more formal and drastic, maybe the answer is just one more person on the team.
I said this before and I'll say it again: the problem is not the committing but the reviewing. If people would spend more time reviewing patches in a critical fashion, rather than semi-blindly adding a '+1' without testing, that would come a long way. I tend to ignore +1's unless I sense that the commenter put time and effort in evaluating a patch. Furthermore, as Robert points out, adding more committers is not going to make things easier -- it creates conflicts. I'm perfectly happy with the way things are and do not intend to add another core committer at this point. (That is not to say that Moshe and Gerhard aren't doing a great job. They'd be in my top 5.) Also, we're going to grow the server administration team so that should/could free up some of my time. Last but not least, I'll work my way through the patch queue once I'm back. With the server going down and the fundraise, the past weeks have been exceptionally busy -- especially behind the scenes. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/