On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 10:46 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: > I've been pondering if our critieria for granting committership is out of > date.
i'm not sure that we really have any objective criteria: just a subjective tradition :) personally speaking, i will not nominate a new committer unless i am convinced that i have the time to provide oversight and help for as long as i think i can be of assistance. this is also a considerable investment of my energy so i need to be convinced that it will be worth it. this means i need to be able to form a judgement from a number of contributions. i prefer to wait until those contributions demonstrate an understand of the way that apache and jakarta works. i am very liberal in supporting karma for committers already at apache. <snip> > So, for people like Chris who are actively trying to get involved, are > we setting a bar that just causes us pain? I don't think there are any > social or legal issues that say we have to wait on people to submit a > bunch of patches, and who cares if we end up with yet more inactive > committers, each active committer will be worth 9 inactive ones. a few observations 1 infrastructure would definitely care: ATM every committer requires shell and a quantity of setup. both stress our limited volunteer infrastructure. hopefully this issue should go away sometime soon. 2 it is very possible some members may have philosophical objections to committership being given away too freely. some other notable projects set high bars for committers. 3 would this increase worries about oversight? allowing committers without a track record would need a lot more active supervision. it may just displace the issue. if there aren't enough people willing to patch the codebase, then are there going to be enough to supervise the codebase? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
