+
+ <para>
+ By now, you've hypothetically followed me through the early
+ writing of a piece of software, the creation of a website and
+ system of documentation and and we've gone ahead and (as will be
+ discussed in <xref linkend="releasing">) released it to the rest
+ of the world. Times passes, and if things go well, people become
+ interested and want to help. The patches begin flowing in.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ <emphasis>Like the parent of any child who grows up, it's now time
+ to wince and smile and do most difficult thing in any parents
+ life: It's time to let go.</emphasis>
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ Delegation is the politcal way of describing this process of
+ <quote>letting go.</quote> It is the process of handing some of
+ the responsibility and power over your project to other reponsible
+ and involved developers. It is difficult for anyone who has
+ invested a large deal of time and energy into a project but it
+ essential for the growth of any free software project. One person
+ can only do so much. <emphasis>A free software project is nothing
+ without the involvement of a group of developers. A group of
+ developers can only be maintained through respectful and
+ responsible leadership and delegation.</emphasis>
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ As your project progresses, you will notice people who are putting
+ signfigant amounts of time and effort into your project. These
+ will be the people submitting the most patches, posting most on
+ the mailing lists, engaging in long email discussions. It is your
+ responsiblity to contact these people and to try and shift some of
+ the power and responsiblity of your position as the project's
+ maintainer onto them (if they want it). There are several easy
+ weays you can do this:
+ </para>
+
+ <sect3>
+ <title>How to delegate</title>
+
+ <para>
+ Like anything, its easier to see how others delegate than to do
+ it yourself. You may find that other developers seem even more
+ experienced or knowledgeable than you. Your job as a maintainer
+ does not mean you have to have to be the best or the
+ brightest. It means you need are responsible for showing good
+ judgement and for recognizing solutions that are maintainable and
+ are not. In a sentance: <emphasis>Keep an eye out for other
+ qualified developers who show an interest and sustained
+ involvement with your project and try and shift responsibility
+ towards them.</emphasis> The following ideas might be good places
+ to start or good sources of inspiriation:
+ </para>
+
+ <sect4>
+ <title>Allow a larger group of people write access to your CVS
+ reponsitory and make real efforts towards rule by a
+ committee</title>
+
+ <para>
+ <ulink url="http://httpd.apache.org/">Apache</ulink> is an
+ example of a project that is run by small group of developers
+ who vote on major technical issues and the admission of new
+ members and all have write access to the main source
+ repository. Their process is detailed <ulink
+ url="http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html">online.</ulink>
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ The <ulink url="http://www.debian.org/"> Debian Project</ulink>
+ is an extreme example of rule by committee. At current count,
+ more than 700 developers have full responsibility for certain
+ aspects of the projects. All these developers can upload into
+ the main ftp servers, and vote on major issues. Direction for
+ the project is determined by the project <ulink
+ url="http://www.debian.org/social_contract">social
+ contract</ulink> and a <ulink
+ url="http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution">constitution</ulink>. To
+ facilitate this system, there are special teams (i.e. the
+ install team, the Japanese language team) and a technical
+ committee and a project lead. There is a project lead as well
+ but the lead's main responsiblity is to, <quote>Appoint
+ Delegates or delegate decisions to the Technical
+ Committee.</quote>
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ While both of these projects operate on a scale that your
+ project will not (at least initially), their example is
+ helpful. Debian's idea of a project who lead who can do
+ <emphasis>nothing</emphasis> but delegate can serve as a
+ charicature of how a project can involve and empower a huge
+ number of developers and grow to a huge size.
+ </para>
+
+ </sect4>
+
+ <sect4 id="releasemanager">
+ <title>Publicly appoint someone as the release manager for a
+ specific release.</title>
+
+ <para>
+ A relase manager is usually responsible for coordinating
+ testing, encforcing a code freeze, being responsible for
+ stability and quality control, packaging up the software, and
+ placing it in the approrpriate places to be downloaded.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ This use of the release manager is a good way to give yourself a
+ break and to shift the responsibility for accepting and
+ rejecting patches to somenoe else. It is a good way of very
+ clearly defining a chunk of work on the project as belonging to
+ a certain person and its a great way of giving yourself a break.
+ </para>
+ </sect4>
+
+ <sect4 id="delegatebranch">
+ <title>Delegate control of an entire branch.</title>
+ <para>
+ If your project chooses to have branches (as described in <xref
+ linkend="branches">), it might be a good idea to appoint someone
+ else to be the the head of a branch. If you like focusing your
+ energy on development releases and the implementation of new
+ features, had total control over the stable releases to a
+ well-suiteded developer.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ The author of linux, Linus Torvalds, came out and crowned Alan
+ Cox as <quote>the man for stable kernels.</quote> All patches
+ for stable kernels go to Alan and, if Linus were to be taken
+ away from work on linux for any reason, Alan Cox would be more
+ than suited to fill his role as the acknowledged heir to the
+ linux maintainership.
+ </para>
+ </sect4>
+ </sect3>
+ </sect2>
+
+<!-- Section2: patching -->
+
+ <sect2 id="patching">
+ <title>Accepting and Rejecting Patches</title>
+ <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 judgement</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 are a firm knowledge of the scope of your program
+ (that's the <quote>idea</quote> I talked about in <xref
+ linkend="chooseproject">) and the ability to recognize,
+ facilitate, and direct <quote>evolution</quote> of a free
+ software program so that the program can grow and change and
+ incorporate functionatlity that was orignally unforseen but 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 unweildiness. These are the criteria that you as a
+ project mainatiner should take into account each time you recieve
+ 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 straighforward 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 responsiblity
+ to reject the change. If you fail to do this, the project will
+ become unweildy and unmaintainable and will ultimately fail.
+ </para>
+ </sect3>
+
+ <sect3>
+ <title>Rejecting patches</title>
+
+ <para>
+ Rejecting patches is probably the most difficult and the most
+ sesnative 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
+ powertrip or being overly bossy or possesive 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 definately 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 responsible and
+ responsive leadership as it tests and serves the interests of
+ your software's community.
+ </para>
+ </sect4>
+
+ <sect4>
+ <title>Technical issues is 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 techincal 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 the
+ 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 submittor 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 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>
+
+ <para>
+ It is your responsibility to first justify your action to not
+ incorporate their change clearly and concisely. Then thank
+ them. Let them know that you a appreciate their help and feel
+ horrible that you can't incorproate their change. Let them know
+ that you look forward to their staying involved and you hope
+ that the next patch or idea meshes better with your project
+ because you appreciate their work and want to see it in the
+ project. If you have ever had a patch rejected that put a large
+ deal of time, thought, and energy into, you remember how it
+ feels and it feels bad. Keep this in mind when you have to let
+ someone down. It's never easy but you need to do everything you
+ have to make it as not-unpleasant as possible.
+ </para>
+ </sect4>
+ </sect3>
projects / fspm_howto / blobdiff