On 23 March 2012 17:09, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > I'm confused as to why we have to have *any* barriers to entry, especially > if the community votes on committership anyways.
Don't take my comments to indicate that their should be barriers, as I said I'm a fan of low barriers. > I would be a fan of a "if x people vote +1, and no one voted -1, let the > person in" mentality. That's the recommended practice for all ASF projects. Nothing I said suggests I'm saying this should be otherwise does it? What I asked for is for someone on this project to document what is expected of a contributor who is a candidate for committership. I did not say such a document should make it hard. Therefore I'm a little confused by your question below. Please restate if I'm missing your point. Ross > > What downsides does this approach pose? > > On 3/23/12 9:55 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > >>Thank Jukka, I've been avoiding casting my mentor vote as I was >>unclear about the policies being adopted here. They felt uneven to me >>but I thought it was perhaps because I've not being paying enough >>attention, or perhaps it was because of this (to me) unfamiliar way of >>working with github forks. >> >>It's kind of strange because I'm a fan of very low barriers to entry >>for projects. Usually as a mentor I find myself having to prompt >>podlings to bring in new people. Here I find the opposite. >> >>I'd really appreciate it if the project team could put together some >>guidelines against which new committers will be evaluated. What is is >>that they are looking for? >> >>I'd also really appreciate it if VOTE threads contained some evidence >>of contributions in the form of appropriate likes to commits, mail >>traffic, documentation edits, etc. This both helps reviewers of the >>vote and helps demonstrate to others how easy it is to gain an input >>here (which is often a motivating factor) >> >>Ross >> >>On 23 March 2012 16:37, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >>>> Lets try this again! Tim has been working w/ the BlackBerry platform >>>> for some time and taken a lead on the coho release tool. >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> This is a hard call if you look at just the community interactions >>> recorded on apache.org [1]. There's a lot of people with similar >>> levels of participation around here, so singling Tim out as someone to >>> be given commit access raises all sorts of questions about fairness >>> and equal access. >>> >>> That said, I see his work on the coho tool on GitHub and since coho >>> really should be an integral part of Cordova, it makes sense to grant >>> Tim committership along with bringing coho to apache.org. Thus my +1. >>> >>> As for BlackBerry, I don't see related commits or issues from Tim on >>> either apache.org or GitHub. Perhaps I'm just not looking at the right >>> place. >>> >>> PS. I hate to question someone's commitment on a public list, which is >>> why votes like this one should IMHO be held on private@. >>> >>> [1] http://callback.markmail.org/search/from:kim >>> >>> BR, >>> >>> Jukka Zitting >> >> >> >>-- >>Ross Gardler (@rgardler) >>Programme Leader (Open Development) >>OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
