comparison DOCS/tech/new_policy_proposal.txt @ 22387:b42d79ee1af8

rename to *_proposal.txt

22387:b42d79ee1af8

New Policy Draft
Version 20070301

Intro:
------
This document is an attempt to write a new policy as the old is fairly
confusing and easy to misunderstand, its intention is not really to
change the rules but rather to write them down clearer ...
also for simplicity and to prevent flamewars, i would suggest that you
fork this document and propose that fork as alternative if you have a
significant disagreement with me on some part

Author:
-------
Michael Niedermayer
the authors of the old policy as i liberally copy and pasted from it

TODO:
add more explanations, justifications and examples
how to become/loose maintainer status
review patches.txt
security/exploit rules
------------------------


1. Definitions
--------------
* MPlayer developer, generally referred to simply as developer in this document
  is any person who has a open (not cracked, not suspended) svn write account
* MPlayer leader, generally referred to simply as leader in this document, every
  leader is also a developer
* CAN/MUST/SHOULD descriptions ...
* public developer mailing list (mplayer-dev-eng at mplayerhq in hungary)


C. Code and SVN Rules
-----------------------------
Renaming/moving/copying files or contents of files
  Do not move, rename or copy files of which you are not the maintainer without
  discussing it on the public developer mailinglist first!

  Never copy or move a file by using 'svn delete' and 'svn add'. Always use
  'svn move' or 'svn copy' instead in order to preserve history and minimize
  the size of diffs.

  To split a file, use 'svn copy' and remove the unneeded lines from each file.

  Don't do a lot of cut'n'paste from one file to another without a very good
  reason and discuss it on the mplayer-dev-eng mailing list first. It will make
  those changes hard to trace.

  Such actions are useless and treated as cosmetics in 99% of cases,
  so try to avoid them.

Reverting broken commits
  There are 2 ways to reverse a change, they differ significantly in what they
  do to the svn repository
  The recommit old method:
    svn merge
    svn ci <file>
    This simply changes the file(s) back to their old version localy and then
    the change is commited as if it is a new change
  The svn copy method
    svn rm <file>
    svn ci <file>
    svn cp -r<good revision> svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/mplayer/trunk/[<path>/]<file> <file>
    svn ci <file>
    This simply removes the file and then copies the last good version with
    its history over it, this method can only be used to revert the n last
    commits but not to revert a bad commit in the middle of its history
  Neither method will change the history, checking out an old version will
  always return exactly that revision with all its bugs and features. The
  difference is that with the svn copy method the broken commit will not be
  part of the directly visible history of the revisions after the reversal
  So if the change was completely broken like reindenting a file against the
  maintainers decision, or a change which mixed functional and cosmetic
  changes then it is better if it is not part of the visible history as it
  would make it hard to read, review and would also break svn annotate
  For the example of a change which mixed functional and cosmetic parts they
  should of course be committed again after the reversal but separately, so one
  change with the functional stuff and one with the cosmetics
  OTOH if the change which you want to reverse was simply buggy but not
  totally broken then it should be reversed with svn merge as otherwise
  the fact that the change was bad would be hidden
  One method to decide which reversal method is best is to ask yourself
  if there is any value in seeing the whole bad change and its removal
  in SVN vs just seeing a comment that says what has been reversed while
  the actual change does not clutter the immediately visible history and
  svn annotate.
  If you are even just slightly uncertain how to revert something then ask on
  the mplayer-dev-eng mailing list.

Broken code 
   You must not commit code which breaks MPlayer! (Meaning unfinished but
   enabled code which breaks compilation or compiles but does not work.)
   You can commit unfinished stuff (for testing etc), but it must be disabled
   (#ifdef etc) by default so it does not interfere with other developers'
   work.

Testing code
   You don't have to over-test things. If it works for you, and you think it
   should work for others, too, then commit. If your code has problems
   (portability, exploits compiler bugs, unusual environment etc) they will be
   reported and eventually fixed.

Splitting changes
   Do not commit unrelated changes together, split them into self-contained
   pieces.
   if you have any doubt discuss it on the developer mailing list before
   committing, also when in doubt more splitting is better then less, changes
   which are larger then 10kbyte generally should be split into several
   incremental changes if possible even if you think they are all related
   keeping changes well split makes reviewing and understanding them on 
   svn log at the time of commit and later when debugging a bug much easier

Compiler Warning fixes
   Do not change code to hide warnings without ensuring that the underlaying
   logic is correct and thus the warning was inappropriate

4. Do not change behavior of the program (renaming options etc) or
   remove functionality from the code without approval in a discussion on
   the mplayer-dev-eng mailing list.


5. Do not commit changes to the build system (Makefiles, configure script)
   which change behaviour, defaults etc, without asking first. The same
   applies to compiler warning fixes, trivial looking fixes and to code
   maintained by other developers. We usually have a reason for doing things
   the way we do. Send your changes as patches to the mplayer-dev-eng mailing
   list, and if the code maintainers say OK, you may commit. This does not
   apply to files you wrote and/or maintain.


Cosmetics
   We refuse source indentation and other cosmetic changes if they are mixed
   with functional changes, such commits will be reverted. Every
   developer has his own indentation style, you should not change it. Of course
   if you (re)write something, you can use your own style... (Many projects
   force a given indentation style - we don't.) If you really need to make
   indentation changes (try to avoid this), separate them strictly from real
   changes.

   NOTE: If you had to put if(){ .. } over a large (> 5 lines) chunk of code,
   do NOT change the indentation of the inner part (don't move it to the right)!


Commit log message
   Always fill out the commit log message. Describe in a few lines what you
   changed and why. You can refer to mailing list postings if you fix a
   particular bug. Comments such as "fixed!" or "Changed it." are unacceptable.


Applying patches
   If you apply a patch by someone else, include the name and email address in
   the log message. Since the mplayer-cvslog mailing list is publicly
   archived you should add some spam protection to the email address. Send an
   answer to mplayer-dev-eng (or wherever you got the patch from) saying that
   you applied the patch. If the patch contains a documentation change, commit
   that as well; do not leave it to the documentation maintainers.


messing with other developers code
   Do NOT commit to code actively maintained by others without permission. Send
   a patch to mplayer-dev-eng instead.


Subscribe to svnlog
    Subscribe to the mplayer-cvslog mailing list. The diffs of all commits
    are sent there and reviewed by all the other developers. Bugs and possible
    improvements or general questions regarding commits are discussed there. We
    expect you to react if problems with your code are uncovered.


Documentation
    Update the documentation if you change behavior or add features. If you are
    unsure how best to do this, send a patch to mplayer-docs, the documentation
    maintainers will review and commit your stuff.


Controversial changes
    Always send a patch to the mplayer-dev-eng mailing list before committing
    if you suspect that the change is going to be controversial. Based on past
    experience, these changes are likely to be controversial:
     - feature removal, even if obsolete
     - changes to "special" output messages (like the "Core dumped ;)" message)
     - verbosity changes from default (info) level
     - changes to "historical" parts of docs and webpages
     - use of internal or external libraries
     - changes to the internal architecture
     - non trivial changes to very fundamental parts of mplayer


Public discussions
    Try to keep important discussions and requests (also) on the
    mplayer-dev-eng mailing list, so that all developers can benefit from them.
    IRC is good for quick discussions, but nobody is there 24/7.
    also subscribe to the public developer mailing list


Patches
    read and follow patches.txt when sending patches for mplayer


Insults
    Do not insult other people in relation to mplayer on any public mailing
    list, that is calling code from someone else a pile of broken shit is
    perfectly fine but calling the developer herself a retarded f*cking moron
    is not acceptable


Forking
    People disagreeing with the developers or leaders may fork the project,
    the leaders MUST in that case provide a svn dump with all history if
    the person forking wants one


Communicating passwords
    Developers who have provided a public gpg key shall only receive
    passwords or other sensitive information related to mplayer encrypted
    with their gpg key


V. Votes
--------
Its inevitable that some things will be decided by voting, votes in the past
have due to total lack of rules been problematic for example as many people
rather wrote long texts and voted based on some condition instead of saying
a clear yes or no, still its important that people can vote based on a
condition
The result of a vote is binding for all developers and leaders, though of
course they can leave the project and thus cease to be a developer or leader
any time

Vs. Starting a vote
Any single developer can start a vote, to do so she has to send a mail to the
public developer mailing list of the project with a subject containing [VOTE]
and a clear and concise description, a longer descrition can be in the body
of the mail

Vp. Proposing an option (point on the ballot, better term?)
Any single developer can propose an option up to 7 days after a vote has
been started, to do so she has to reply to the original vote mail on the
public developer mailing list and clearly, concise and unmistakably describe
the option and place [VOTE-OPTION] instead of [VOTE] in the subject
in addition to proposed options, there always exists the default option
of doing nothing
options can be conditional on anything which at the end of the vote can
be clearly and unmistakably be answered with true or false

Vv. Voting
Any developer can cast a vote up to 10 days days after a vote has been
started, to do so she has to reply to the original vote mail on the
public developer mailing list and rate options each with an integer
unrated options shall be counted equal to the default option
Any leader can cast a veto against any option except the default up to 10 days
days after a vote has been started, to do so she has to reply to the original
vote mail on the public developer mailing list and replace 
[VOTE] by [VOTE-VETO]
Developers and leaders who use gpg/pgp MUST sign their votes and vetoes

Vc. Counting votes
The person starting the vote has to count the votes and vetoes and publish
the result on the public developer mailing list as reply to the original vote
with [VOTE-RESULTS] instead of [VOTE] in the subject
Vcv. Counting vetoes
if the majority of leaders that is yes >= no && yes>0 cast a veto against an
option then it has a required supermajority of 2:1 otherwise it has a
required supermajority of 0:1 and in either case no quorum requirement
Vcc. the votes shall be counted by using the Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD
Voting Method described in http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution A.6

Reasoning behind avoiding of a quorum and majority requirement except in
the case of vetoes
short awnser its stupid and has catastrophical failure modes
example of one such failure mode, lets assume a 1:1 majority requirement
as debian uses by default, there are 101 developers who vote, there are
3 options A,B and D the default (doing nothing / further discussions)
50 developers prefer A over B and B over discussions (A>B>D)
50 developers prefer discussions over A and A over B (D>A>B)
1 developer prefers B over discussions and discussions over A (B>D>A)
in this case A is approved by 50 of 101 developers and is droped due to
the lack of majority, B is approved by 51 of 101 developers and is not
furthermore B wins even though 100 of 101 developers prefer A over B


S. Changes to developer and Leader status
----------------------------------------
The majority of leaders, that is yes>no can give and take away 
developer and leader status to people
furthermore any developer or leader can step back and thus loose
his leader and or developer status
People disagreeing with the leaders are free to fork the project
new developers should be asked for real name, public gpg key, phone
number and email addresses, none of this is mandatory though, it is asked
so as to be able to contact the developer if the need arises and one
contact method fails


O. Violations
-------------
Any leader can after at least one leader has warned another developer
due to breaking policy, suspend his account if he repeats the violation
Ow. A policy violation warning MUST be CCed to the developer who violated
the policy


We think our rules are not too hard. If you have comments, contact us.