On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:48, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Peter Donald wrote: > > Committers have no rights, just privlidges. > > What about the right to place a binding vote and propose somebody for > commit access? aren't they rights?
Anyone can propose somebody for commit access (they may not be able to vote but that is besides the point) :) But a "binding vote" is a privlidge. If that privlidge is abused then it should be reoved. ie Technically I believe I could still vote on Cocoon (unless 6 months "retiring" has been acted on) when I shouldn't be allowed to. If I came in and decided that I didn't want cocoon to do something because; * I had my own pet xml framework that I wanted to promote above Cocoon or * I wanted to hurt some Cocoon committer because they had pissed me off or * I wanted to force cocoon to adopt my pet toolkit or ... <insert some other personal reason> ... And lets also assume I can come up with a valid technical reason (should not be hard). Do I still get to vote on this? Or to be more precise - should I get a vote on this? Or an even simpler example. When the ECM was being developed I pointed out several design decisions that I believed were mind numbingly stupid. I could quite easily figure out technical reasons to block its development and I certainly helped enough to be classified as participating (I suspect me and leif have been the most active on it over last couple of months). Even then - do you think I have the "right" to veto changes for some petty vindictive reasons? Nope. Voting is definetly a privlidge, not a right. People who abuse it by using it as a weapon should have their privs yoinked. -- Cheers, Peter Donald ----------------------------------------------- "You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain -----------------------------------------------
