+ <para>
+ This HOWTO has already touched on the fact that as the maintainer
+ of a free software project, one of primary and most important
+ responsibilities will be accepting and rejecting patches submitted
+ to you by other developers.
+ </para>
+
+ <sect3>
+ <title>Technical judgment</title>
+
+ <para>
+ In <emphasis>Open Source Development with CVS</emphasis>, Karl
+ Fogel makes a convincing argument that the most important things
+ to keep in mind when rejecting or accepting patches are:
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ <itemizedlist>
+
+ <listitem>
+ <para>A firm knowledge of the scope of your program (that's the
+ <quote>idea</quote> I talked about in <xref linkend="chooseproject">);</para>
+ </listitem>
+
+ <listitem>
+ <para>The ability to recognize, facilitate, and direct
+ <quote>evolution</quote> of your program so that the program
+ can grow and change and incorporate functionality that was
+ originally unforeseen;</para>
+ </listitem>
+
+ <listitem>
+ <para>The necessity to avoid digressions that might expand the
+ scope of the program too much and result and push the project
+ towards an early death under its own weight and
+ unwieldiness.</para>
+ </listitem>
+
+ </itemizedlist>
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ These are the criteria that you as a project maintainer should
+ take into account each time you receive a patch.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ Fogel elaborates on this again and states the <quote>the
+ questions to ask yourself when considering whether to implement
+ (or approve) a change are:</quote>
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ <itemizedlist>
+
+ <listitem>
+ <para>Will it benefit a significant percentage of the program's
+ user community?</para>
+ </listitem>
+
+ <listitem>
+ <para>Does it fit within the program's domain or within a
+ natural, intuitive extension of that domain?</para>
+ </listitem>
+
+ </itemizedlist>
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ The answers to these questions are never straightforward and its
+ very possible (and even likely) that the person who submitted the
+ patch may feel differently about the answer to those questions
+ than you do. However, if you feel that that the answer to either
+ of those questions is <quote>no,</quote> it is your responsibility
+ to reject the change. If you fail to do this, the project will
+ become unwieldy and unmaintainable and will ultimately fail.
+ </para>
+ </sect3>
+
+ <sect3>
+ <title>Rejecting patches</title>
+
+ <para>
+ Rejecting patches is probably the most difficult and the most
+ sensitive job that the maintainer of any free software project
+ has to face. But sometimes it has to be done. I mentioned earlier
+ (in <xref linkend="developers"> and in <xref
+ linkend="delegation">) that any developer needs to try and
+ balance your responsibility and power to make what you think are
+ the best technical decisions with the fact that you will lose
+ support from other developers if you seem like you are on a power
+ trip or being overly bossy or possessive of a community-based
+ project. I recommend that you keep three major facts in mind when
+ rejecting patches (or other changes):
+ </para>
+
+ <sect4>
+ <title>Bring it to the community</title>
+ <para>
+ One of the best ways of justifying a decision to reject a patch
+ and working to not seem like you keep an iron grip on your
+ project is by not making the decision alone at all. It might
+ make sense to turn over larger proposed changes or more
+ difficult decisions to a development mailing list where they can
+ be discussed. There will be some patches (bug fixes, etc.) which
+ will definitely be accepted and some that you feel are so off
+ base that they do not even merit further discussion. It is those
+ that fall into the grey area between these two groups that might
+ merit a quick forward to a mailing list.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ I recommend this process wholeheartedly. As the project
+ maintainer you are worried about making the best decision for
+ the project, for the project's users and developers, and for
+ yourself as a responsible project leader. Turning things over to
+ an email list will demonstrate your own responsibility and
+ responsive leadership as it tests and serves the interests of
+ your software's community.
+ </para>
+ </sect4>
+
+ <sect4>
+ <title>Technical issues are not always good justification</title>
+ <para>
+ Especially towards the beginning, you will find that many
+ changes are difficult to implement, introduce new bugs, or have
+ other technical problems. Try to see past these. Especially with
+ added functionality, good ideas do not always come from good
+ coders. Technical merit is a valid reason to postpone an
+ application of a patch but it is not always a good reason to
+ reject a change outright. Even small changes are worth the
+ effort of working with the developer submitting the patch to
+ iron out bugs and incorporate the change if you thing you think
+ it seems like a good addition to your project. The effort on
+ your part will work to make your project a community project and
+ it will pull a new or less experienced developer onto your
+ project and even teach them something that might help them in
+ making their next patch.
+ </para>
+ </sect4>
+
+ <sect4>
+ <title>Common courtesy</title>
+ <para>
+ It should go without saying but, <emphasis>above all and in all
+ cases, just be nice.</emphasis> If someone has an idea and cares
+ about it enough to write some code and submit a patch, they
+ care, they are motivated, and they are already involved. Your
+ goal as the maintainer is make sure they submit again. They may
+ have thrown you a dud this time but next time may be the idea or
+ feature that revolutionizes your project.
+ </para>