Hi Ruben, > I have a question: don't you think that the consensus to promote an > individual to committer, in the terms it is defined (unanimous > decission) can be a little strict? I don't think it's fair that we > may loose a good developer just because one single institution votes
Not sure I can give you a complete answer but I thought I would share that up until now we have not had any dissent on accepting committers, and dissent on accepting a new committer would require discussion (e.g. all -1 votes require more than just the vote, an argument has to be put forth). I think requiring consensus on adding a new committer makes for a strong body and helps us resist forking. I'm in favour of a consensus-based approach for this. And just a clarification that on this matter committers vote, not institutions. While most (not all) of our committer body reports directly to someone at a higher ed institution, that institution doesn't actually get a vote. It is the group of committer who have demonstrated merit that get to vote on new committers. Regards, Chris _______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
