> I'm interested in hearing why you think that committership is > *the* incentive for people to contribute?
Same here. I may not be a representative of the average user population, but I don't WANT committership until I'm fully convinced that I can submit something without breaking somebody else's stuff. I think the software is far more valuable when there is only a small group of well-qualified people that take great care in only adding software that either improves or enhances the current code base, rather than allowing anybody and everybody to add whatever they want to the code. I'm convinced the latter is the definitive way to the destruction of Cocoon. OTOH I do think that separating the documentation from the code base and thus allowing different rules/people for committing to the documentation is a good idea. Then again, I still think that even when separated the same kind of rules should apply for achieving committership: you should prove through your actions that you are "worth" it, whatever "worth" maybe. > I find it plain wrong to dangle a committer-carrot in front > of people to get them contributing. It attracts the wrong > type of people and will hurt the community in the long term. +1 ;-) Bye, Helma
