[tei-council] fine-grained permissions for subversion

[Stuart Yeates]

There is also the fact that svn and other version control systems are 
specifically designed to make changes revertible, should someone 
make a mistake. Not trusting them to do their job, seems silly to me.

cheers
stuart

> Lou Burnard wrote:
> While I sympathise with this point of view, I feel duty bound to point
> out that there is a strong tradition of "cabinet responsibility" within
> the TEI and particularly within the Council. Divvying responsibility for
> particular sections or topics up would somewhat go against that tradition.
> 
> On 12/04/11 18:39, Martin Holmes wrote:
> > For me, the strongest argument for granular permissions would be the
> > possibility to designate specific people as "maintainers" for particular
> > areas of the specification in which they happen to be expert. I rather
> > like the idea of gatekeepers (rather than having lots of people with
> > commit privileges over the whole repo). There are some areas where I'd
> > feel qualified to be a gatekeeper, but others where I definitely should
> > not be; and with designated people for each area, it would be easier to
> > know who is responsible for making a specific change once the council
> > has agreed to it.
> >
> > On 11-04-12 09:40 AM, Piotr Bański wrote:
> >> Much as you say, Sebastian, we didn't consider it critical, just
> >> something potentially nice to have. So no special concern, I was just
> >> following up on a conversation on SF access and the granularity of
> >> permissions.